Techniques for minimizing nitrous oxide emissions and increasing certainty in generating, quantifying and verifying standardized environmental attributes relating to nitrous oxide

ABSTRACT

A computer-based method for generating standardized emission reduction credits includes the steps of receiving site-specific data with respect to a geographic location regarding at least one variable impacting reduction of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere, retrieving data general to a geographic region encompassing the location regarding at least one variable impacting the nitrous oxide, processing the site-specific and the general data through a model running on a computer, to determine an approximate change in impact on the nitrous oxide at the location over a specified time period, conducting an uncertainty analysis on the approximate change at the location over the specified time period, via the computer, from the uncertainty analysis, identifying a quantity of emission reduction credits meeting an established standard of certainty as the standardized emission reduction credits; and reporting from the computer the identified quantity of the standardized emission reduction credits.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application claims the benefit of U.S. ProvisionalApplication No. 61/055,902 filed May 23, 2008, and priority toco-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/045,583 filed Mar. 10,2008, and its parent U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/364,128 filedFeb. 10, 2003, which issued Nov. 25, 2008, under U.S. Pat. No.7,457,758, all three such applications being incorporated herein intheir entireties by this reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention generally relates to minimizing undesired nitrousoxide emissions. More particularly, the present invention relates tomethods of increasing precision in controlling emission of nitrous oxideand thereby increasing certainty when generating, quantifying andconfirming standardized environmental attributes and reservestandardized environmental attribute, when such attributes relate tonitrous oxide emissions. These attributes are quantified for the purposeof monetizing environmental attributes of benefit to society intoEnvironmental Benefit Credits (EBCs), sometimes referred to as “Greentags”.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The development of a vibrant economy requires a safe and healthy foodsupply, sustainable land use, clean water, and pure air, among otherthings. Producers, such as farmers and ranchers offset their productioncosts with income derived from products such as grain, hay and meat.State and Federal regulations provide essentially no penalties fornon-point sources of pollution, with the exception of indirectdisincentives such as SodBuster or SwampBuster farm bill provisions.Environmental incentives for participants in conservation programs,e.g., EQIP, CRP, CSP, may not be sufficient to outweigh market drivenproduction incentives. Therefore, the costs for sub-optimal land use aretransferred to the public in the form of remediation costs, while thevalue of benefits realized by society through sustainableenvironmentally-responsible landuse management and optimal land use doesnot reach the producer.

A major barrier to the development of agro-environmental service marketsis the dearth of biophysical linkages between management practices,measurable impacts on soil, air, and water quality and environmentalregulations. The invention described herein is able to connect basicscience research on biogeochemical systems, with ecological models,economic models and relevant legal analysis to translate that researchinto market-driven management strategies that not only maximizeproduction but also produce environmental commodities that embodyattributes of value to society.

An example of environmental attributes of the present invention isCarbon Emission Reduction Credits. An accelerating rate of change in theamounts of specific trace gases in the earth's atmosphere has thepotential to modify the earth's energy balance, which may result in avariety of consequences. These trace gases are often referred to asgreenhouse gases and include carbon dioxide. Although there isdisagreement concerning the potential threats or benefits of thischange, there is widespread agreement in the global community that it isprudent to enact policies to attempt to slow down the rate of change. Atthe same time, research is underway to predict the consequences ofincreasing greenhouse gas concentrations and to develop the technologyto economically limit those increases. All current protocols haveestablished emission reduction targets that define a specific base year,e.g., 1990, and specify reductions for specific sources as a fractionalpercentage of emission rates from those of the base year.

The increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is aglobal issue. For example, carbon dioxide emitted from into theatmosphere from any source such as a power plant has a lifetime ofapproximately 100 years and therefore is distributed globally. As aresult, at least for the issue of atmospheric greenhouse gases, thegeographic location where the greenhouse gases are removed from theatmosphere is less important than the fact that they are removed. Forother types of EBCs, the specific location of the emission reduction maybe important. For example, the reduction of the transport of sediment ina watershed that has many man-made water impoundments, such as dams, maybe of more value than the reduction of sediment transport into anunregulated and uncontrolled watershed.

One of the key provisions of many national strategies to limit the rateof growth in the amounts of atmospheric greenhouse gases is the conceptof emissions trading. Emissions trading is a process whereby specifictarget emission rates of certain greenhouse gases are set for specificindustries. A member of the industry who achieves measured emissionsbelow the target rates may trade the difference on the open market toanother who exceeds, or forecasts that it will exceed, its own emissiontargets. An entity responsible for measured emissions above its targetrates may be subject to fines or other sanctions. The objective is toreduce the overall emission of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, evenif the emissions of one particular source are not decreased, or indeedare increased. In the last decade, the effectiveness of thismarket-based emissions reduction approach as applied to criteria airpollutants in the US has been demonstrated. Fledgling attempts todevelop similar systems for water pollution trades and for otherremediation issues are in progress, however they have been hindered byseveral key factors addressed by the methods and apparatus describedherein.

The unit of measure of tradable carbon emissions that has been generallyaccepted is commonly known as the Carbon Emission Reduction Credit, orCERC, which is equivalent to one metric ton of carbon dioxide gas (orother greenhouse gas equivalent) that is not emitted into the earth'satmosphere (emission reduction) or one metric ton of carbon dioxide thatis removed from the atmosphere (emission offset) due to a human-causedchange. That is, a CERC can be generated for human activities that haveoccurred since a base year, e.g., 1990, that have resulted in areduction in the specified business-as-usual emissions of greenhousegases.

For example, CERCs can be generated through energy efficiency gains offossil fuel technology, substitution of biofuels for fossil fuels, orremoval of greenhouse gases from industrial gas streams. CERCs also canbe generated by sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide into land orwater, e.g., by reforesting land or through implementation ofagricultural practices that increase the storage of organic matter inthe water or soil. Additionally CERCs can be generated by capturingmethane emitted from sewage lagoons and burning it into carbon dioxidesince one ton of methane is equivalent to approximately 22 tons ofcarbon dioxide with respect to its global warming potential. AdditionalCERCs would be generated if the methane was used as a substitute forfossil fuels. Other EBCs can be generated through the modification ofbusiness as usual management practices. For example, a producer canswitch from pesticide intensive management to “organic farming”practices and therefore potentially earn water quality based EBCs.

With regard to other greenhouse gases for which use of EBCs would beapplicable, nitrous oxide (N₂O) is a greenhouse gas for which excessgeneration also has very serious environmental consequences. While thetotal contribution to radiative warming (total greenhouse gas effect) ofnitrous oxide is less that that of carbon dioxide, its persists longerin the atmosphere. Indeed, it has been estimated that on the basis ofthe net incrememntal greenhouse gas impact per additional moleculeemitted into the atmosphere, nitrous oxide has almost 300 times theimpact on global warming as carbon dioxide. Thus, even though nitrousoxide has a lower concentration in the atmosphere, it is the thirdlargest greenhouse gas contributor. Furthermore, nitrous oxide has along lifetime in the atmosphere. Presently, nitrous oxide concentrationin the atmosphere is about 300 parts per billion and is increasing atabout ½% to 1% per year.

Although a small amount of nitrous oxide is emitted from coal firedpower plants and in the manufacturing of cement, the largest nitrousoxide sources occur in ecosystems. From a process standpoint, nitrousoxide is produced as a consequence of nitrogen cycling in soils. Innature, fixed nitrogen that can be utilized by microbes and plants inthe production of proteins, is at a premium. After water, fixed nitrogenavailability is usually the next major limiting resource. Therefore mostmicrobial processes in soil have evolved to conserve this valuablecommodity. As a consequence, the emission of N₂O usually only occursduring transitional times when there is a “system upset”, analogous tothe flare for an industrial process.

Though nitrous oxide can be produced during the process ofnitrification, the major source of nitrous oxide is thought to occurduring denitrification. More particularly, nitrification is theoxidation of ammonia with oxygen to form nitrites (primarily by bacteriaof the genus Nitrosomonas and Nitrosococcus), followed by the oxidationof nitrites to nitrates (primarily by bacteria of the genusNitrobacter). During these microbial processes, some loss of nitratesoccurs though leaching, and ammonia, nitrogen and nitrous oxide can belost to the atmosphere. However, in practice, the nitrous oxide lossesfrom fixation are small compared to the losses from denitrification.Moreover, losses from denitrification vary substantially depending ondiffering conditions, in ways not fully appreciated nor compensated forin risk assessment relating to calculation and trading of EBCs.

It may even be said that existing verification processes are flawed,with leakage a particular problem when accounting for nitrous oxideemissions. For example, in areas of varying geography, for example,uneven agricultural land, “hotspots” of nitrous oxide leakage canperiodically occur, and such occurrences may not be accounted for, suchas when for short periods of time, low lying areas may be subject topooling water created by runoff, and such wet spots can create anaerobicconditions conducive to denitrification. Land management practices maynot be implemented to prevent such leakage and indeed may exacerbatesuch leakage, let alone account for such leakage on agricultural land.

The International Plant Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses thescientific data such as field studies and modeling studies that measureand predict greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The IPCC then makesrecommendations that are used in evaluating the GHG impacts of specificmanagement scenarios and GHG emission reduction projects. With regard tonitrous oxide, the IPCC evaluation concludes that incremental nitrousoxide emissions (the secular trend) indicate a link between enhancedfluxes of nitrous oxide and the increased use of nitrogenousfertilizers. Further they have stated that increases in atmosphericconcentrations of nitrous oxide are directly correlated with increasedapplication of fertilizers. Therefore, it is likely that in the futurecarbon storage in soils will be discounted, based on leakage of nitrousoxide. In addition, this line of reasoning will lead to the erroneousconclusion that reductions of nitrous oxide emissions will closelyfollow reductions in fertilizer application rates.

Although a statistical correlation exists between increased fertilizeruse and increases in the secular trend of nitrous oxide, field researchindicates that nitrous oxide emissions are not uniform and continuous.Instead, emissions of nitrous oxide from soils tend to be concentratedin small spots over short time periods. In fact, most nitrous oxideemissions come from anaerobic areas where denitrification occursagricultural fields. Therefore the currently-recommended mitigationstrategy to reduce nitrogen fertilizer application rates as a way tolower nitrous oxide emissions is seriously flawed. On most of the landor on a specific agricultural field, only small plots, if any willactually respond to reduce nitrous oxide emissions. Therefore isgreenhouse gas emission reduction credits or emission avoidance creditsare awarded based on reduced fertilizer nitrogen usage alone, thesecredits will not result in actual reductions of nitrous oxide emissionsand will therefore not be effective in mitigating global climateforcing.

It is worth noting that in agricultural practices, where water is thefirst limiting factor, nitrogen is the next limiting factor. This is whythe application of nitrogen-based fertilizers, primarily anhydrousammonia manure, is so prevalent worldwide. While some fraction of suchfertilizers are emitted into the atmosphere (some estimate a range of ½%to 1% of the fertilizer), field research measurements that nitrous oxideemissions are in fact quite variable and emissions of nitrous oxide tendto occur in relatively small spaces over short time periods, and thenemission stops. Thus, despite the extensive use of anhydrous ammoniamanure and other urea based fertilizers, the largest portion of nitrousoxide emissions are not likely to be simply related to some fraction ofthe industrial fertilizer applications. However current biogeochemicalmodels that describe the microbial production processes that controlnitrous oxide are becoming well-understood. However the difficulty ofextrapolating from the micro-scale and microbial-scale processes topredict nitrous oxide emissions over an entire field or land parcellimits the accuracy of current nitrous oxide predictive capability. Thistherefore limits the potential accuracy of the prediction of theeffectiveness of specific landuse management actions to reduce nitrousoxide emissions. The lack of models to accurately link landusemanagement and nitrous oxide emissions also undermines the verificationprocesses necessary for certainty in calculating EBCs involving nitrousoxide. In addition, since the global annual nitrous oxide sink ordestruction rate due to reactions in the atmosphere can be readilycalculated, and since the global distribution of nitrous oxide has beenwell-characterized, it is relatively easy to calculate the global sourcestrength of nitrous oxide needed to generate globally-measuredatmospheric concentrations. Also, since many scientists believe that thesources of atmospheric nitrous oxide are largely identified, Oftenscientists simply identify the general source, such as “agriculture”scale that source by total area weighted by an average nitrogenfertilization rate factor and divide by

In the face of the issues briefly described above relating to greenhousegases generally, a market is emerging for trading CERCs, EBCs and othergreen tags. One type of CERC trading involves an industrial consortium,where each industrial entity determines a rough estimate of the numberof CERCs generated by its activity or needed from others due to itsactivity. If an individual entity has generated CERCs by changing itsbusiness-as-usual activity, e.g., by reducing the amounts of greenhousegases emitted, it can trade the CERCs and EBCs to others in theconsortium.

There also have been entities involved specifically in CERC tradingbased on increasing the storage of carbon in soil. For example, in 1999a consortium of Canadian power companies hired an insurance company tocontractually obligate a group of Iowa farmers to twenty years ofno-till farming. Based on general data, a broker for the power companiesassumed that this land management practice would result in sufficientsequestration of carbon into the soil to generate CERCs. The powercompanies also purchased an insurance policy for protection against thepossibility that no CERCs, or insufficient CERCs, would be generated bythis arrangement. This trade was designed by the consortium of powercompanies to minimize the price that the farmers were paid. Thedifficulty and uncertainty of predicting these CERCs, obtainingindemnification or insurance, and banding together a sufficiently largenumber of farmers to generate a pool of potential CERCs large enough toovercome substantial baseline transactional costs and uncertaintywhether the CERCs generated would meet current, pending or futureregulatory requirements operated to drive up the costs incurred by thepotential CERC purchasers, drive down the price paid to the producersand generally make it difficult to establish and engage in a market forCERCs by not efficiently maximizing incentives to producers and by notefficiently minimizing risks to purchasers.

Existing natural resource-based methods to trade CERCs generally share anumber of shortcomings. Typically, the contracts specify certain landmanagement practices, but do not require a certain number of CERCs to begenerated. The estimated CERC values are highly variable and minimizeddue to uncertainties caused by using general regional data to try toestimate CERCs and by high transactional costs. Without a reasonablyaccurate method of quantifying CERCs generated, it is difficult for allto place a fair value on the trade. Also, trades generally have beendesigned and instigated by a potential CERC purchaser, or an entityrepresenting one, and not by the CERC producer, such as a farmer orlandowner. Further, each trade must be individually designed by the CERCpurchaser to be consistent with current and anticipated legislativerequirements and to maximize the likelihood that CERCs will begenerated. Competition is also limited by the requirement of projectslarge enough to achieve economies of scale. For this reason, there hasbegun to emerge aggregators who attempt to produce CERCs by travelingfrom producer to producer with the object of having each producer sign acontract in which they agree to transfer ownership of CERCs to theaggregator, implement a specified management practice for a specifiedtime period over a specified number of acres in exchange for a specifiedprice. The aggregator who then makes general estimates of potentialcarbon sequestration, develops a project-specific verification protocol,and packages the CERCs into a “project”. The project is then marketed topurchasers through a broker who must convince clients that the projectcriteria and indemnification are sufficient to meet the standards of thespecific country in which they are applied. In many Kyoto countries, aproject approval board is designated and must pass judgment on eachindividual project. As a consequence, the price paid to CERC producersis driven down thereby decreasing incentives to engage in practices thatresult in carbon sequestration and therefore the market for tradingCERCs is limited.

In the absence of a globally accepted process to generate, quantify andstandardize CERCs, especially CERCs generated or projected to begenerated by carbon sequestration in land or plants, the market for suchCERCs remains relatively primitive, inefficient and uncertain. Theexisting attempts to identify and trade CERCs suffer from difficultiesin quantifying accrued and projected CERCs, high administrative costs inquantifying and indemnifying accrued and projected CERCs, and the lackof a market for individuals and individual entities to effectivelyengage in CERC trades. These problems particularly restrict the abilityof an individual landowner, or groups of landowners, to efficientlygenerate, quantify, standardize, market and trade CERCs.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A need exists for an improved method of generating, quantifying andstandardizing CERCs, particularly so that a relatively smaller producerof CERCs, such as an individual landowner or groups of landowners, maybe able to reliably and efficiently participate in a market for CERCs bygenerating and quantifying standardized CERCs by a method capable ofadapting to meet a broad range of regulatory specifications.

More generally, a need exists for an improved method of generating,quantifying and standardizing other environmental attributes to generateenvironmental benefit credits (EBCs), in addition to CERCS, again,particularly so that a relatively smaller producer of environmentalattributes may be able to reliably and efficiently participate in amarket for such standardized environmental attributes. In addition,there is a need for systems that are specific so that they areperformance based rather than only methods-based.

The present invention generally relates to a method and apparatus fordetermining standardized environmental attributes and, moreparticularly, to a method and apparatus for generating, quantifying andconfirming standardized environmental attributes and reservestandardized environmental attributes. This method and apparatus alsoconverts standardized environmental attributes and reserve environmentalbenefit credits into standardized environmental benefit credits (EBCs)that can be monetized.

More particularly, this invention relates to the application of sciencethat can be translated into market systems for commodity attributes andenvironmental services provided by land managers engaging in practicesthat promote clean air, clean water, and sustainable land use, or otherdesirable environmental attribute. The invention describes methods andapparatus for land managers to optimize their operations to provide bothprofits and environmental benefits, e.g., by creating market systems toreward cropland management that increases soil carbon sequestration andreduces erosion, or to reward land use management systems thatcontribute to improved quality of ambient air, water or even thecommodities produced. Further, the system links performance and rewards,thus maximizing market efficiencies as needed for efficientmarket-driven approaches.

This invention further describes a method and apparatus forstandardizing environmental attributes by identifying, generating,quantifying and certifying environmental attributes, such asenvironmental attributes associated with the production of commodities.This invention describes a system to standardize and even monetize, theenvironmental attributes embodied in the production of commodities, suchas meat, crops, and animal feed, in order to provide economic incentivesfor the avoidance of pollution, the production of clean water, theproduction of clean air, and/or the utilization of management practicesthat promote long-term agro-ecosystem sustainability. The standardizedor monetized embodiments of commodity production can be attached to thecommodity and travel through the production process to be added as apremium at the point of retail sale. For example, currently “rainforestfriendly” coffee and “dolphin-free tuna” are sold at a premium in retailmarkets. Alternatively, the standardized or monetized attributes can bedisaggregated from the commodity itself and traded independently. Or, inanother embodiment, the standardized attributes can be disaggregatedfrom the commodity that was produced, re-aggregated across various typesof attributes, and re-attached in the market-place to a product in theform of an “eco-tag” or “green tag” or product premium to be paid by thecommodity purchaser. Additionally, the standardized environmentalattributes may be pooled with other standardized attributes. The methodmay be applied so that it is performance based. That is, those producerswho do the most to maximize the production of EBCs will receive thehighest rewards. The method may also be applied as a methods-basedsystem, however methods-based approaches reward all who engage inspecific management methods equally regardless of final results.Therefore methods-based approaches create substantial marketinefficiencies. In addition this system can be utilized by thoserequired to report on their net environmental attributes such as netgreenhouse gas emissions. Also the system can be used by those engagedin EBC projects to provide independent third-party verification of theimpacts of proscribed management programs.

In one embodiment of the invention, general data and specific data areselectively input and analyzed in a modeling program to quantify theeffects of certain human activities on a particular environmentalattribute. An uncertainty analysis is conducted to determine thequantity of the environmental attributes that are deemed to meetspecified statistical confidence limits. This serves as a basis toestablish a certified pool of EBCs, with a defined, higher level ofcertainty, and a reserve pool of EBCs, with a lower level of certainty.Preferably, a user-friendly interface, such as an interactive website,is used to allow a user to 1) establish a baseline status; 2) explorealternative future strategies to estimate the effects of changes ininput data, particularly that involving human activities; and/or 3)perform a complete analysis and provide a final report for creditaggregation and marketing.

Examples of such standardized EBCs that may be generated through thepresent invention include: (1) green house gas (“GHG”) emissions offsetsfrom farmers and ranchers due to soil conservation practices (carbondioxide—CO₂), improved manure management (methane—CH₄, nitrousoxide—N₂O), improved fertilizer management or optimization (N₂O), orreduced energy use during operations (CO₂); (2) water pollution offsetsfrom farmers and ranchers due to reduction of erosion and sedimentdelivery to water bodies (sediment), reduced or optimized irrigation toreduce water withdrawals and contaminated irrigation water delivery, orremoval of drain tile (NO_(X); phosphates—PO₄), reduced nutrient lossesfrom fields and feedlots to surface and groundwater (NO₃, ammonia—NH₄,PO₄), reduced or optimized use of pesticides and herbicides of concern,such as Atrazine, improved management of livestock to prevent negativeriparian impacts and maintain stream channel integrity (sediment,nutrients) and decrease direct and indirect GHG production; and (3)criteria pollutant reduction due to reduced use or improved efficiencyof diesel and internal combustion equipment (oxygen—O₂, PM_(X), NO₃,)and optimized crop processing and transportation. Examples of EBCs thatmay be traded between regulated entities include: (1) GHG emissionsoffsets due to implementation of GHG and pollution mitigation efforts inconfined animal feeding operations, such as CH₄ recovery from coveredmanure lagoons or digesters, feed supplements to reduce entericproductions of CH₄, decreased production of nitrous oxide due toimproved manure handling practices, and energy efficiency projects incommodity handling or storage at farm cooperatives or private processingcenters; and (2) water pollution offsets from confined feedingoperations due to waste handling and runoff mitigation projects inexcess of regulatory requirements.

In an embodiment of the present invention, analysis of layers ofsatellite imagery data, topographical maps and data, hydrological data,historical weather data, current weather predictions, soil data andplant science information are evaluated for individual plots of land,portions of a property or portions of a region and for larger regions,to identify and/or predict potential nitrous oxide emission hotspots.Results are incorporated into uncertainty analyses relating to EBCsinvolving nitrous oxide emissions, risk assessment in trading same, andcalculation of reserve EBCs which are not tradable. Results also may beused for land management practices to reduce unwanted nitrous oxideemissions and thereby decrease unwanted greenhouse gases generally. Suchland management practices may involve precision application of anitrogen stabilizer such as nitrapyrin. In another embodiment, anitrogen stabilizer such as nitrapyrin is applied to agriculturalacreage by other than a broadcast application, with application amountsand location coordinates provided using GPS (Global Positioning System)technology based upon the analyses of layers of data such as theimagery, topographic, hydrological, weather, soil and plant datadescribed above, so that only portions of the agricultural acreage aretreated with the nitrogen stabilizer.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a flow chart depicting one embodiment of the invention togenerate standardized carbon emission reduction credits and reservecarbon emission reduction credits.

FIG. 2 is a flow chart depicting another embodiment of the invention togenerate standardized carbon emission reduction credits and reservecarbon emission reduction credits.

FIG. 3 is a flow chart depicting data components of site-specific dataused to generate standardized carbon emission reduction credits andreserve carbon emission reduction credits of one embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 4 is a flow chart depicting data components of general data used togenerate standardized carbon emission reduction credits and reservecarbon emission reduction credits of one embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 5 depicts an apparatus of the present invention to generatestandardized carbon emission reduction credits.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

This invention generally relates to a method and apparatus fordetermining standardized environmental attributes and, moreparticularly, to a method and apparatus for generating, quantifying andconfirming standardized environmental attributes and reservestandardized environmental attributes. This method and apparatus alsoconverts standardized environmental attributes and reserve environmentalbenefit credits into standardized environmental benefit credits (EBCs)that can be monetized.

More particularly, this invention relates to the application of sciencethat can be translated into market systems for commodity attributes andenvironmental services provided by land managers engaging in practicesthat promote clean air, clean water, and sustainable land use, or otherdesirable environmental attribute. The invention describes methods andapparatus for land managers to optimize their operations to provide bothprofits and environmental benefits, e.g., by creating market systems toreward cropland management that increases soil carbon sequestration andreduces erosion, or to reward land use management systems thatcontribute to improved quality of ambient air, water or even thecommodities produced. Further, the system links performance and rewards,thus maximizing market efficiencies as needed for efficientmarket-driven approaches.

This invention further describes a method and apparatus forstandardizing environmental attributes by identifying, generating,quantifying and certifying environmental attributes, such asenvironmental attributes associated with the production of commodities.This invention describes a system to standardize and even monetize, theenvironmental attributes embodied in the production of commodities, suchas meat, crops, and animal feed, in order to provide economic incentivesfor the avoidance of pollution, the production of clean water, theproduction of clean air, and/or the utilization of management practicesthat promote long-term agro-ecosystem sustainability. The standardizedor monetized embodiments of commodity production can be attached to thecommodity and travel through the production process to be added as apremium at the point of retail sale. For example, currently “rainforestfriendly” coffee and “dolphin-free tuna” are sold at a premium in retailmarkets. Alternatively, the standardized or monetized attributes can bedisaggregated from the commodity itself and traded independently. Or, inanother embodiment, the standardized attributes can be disaggregatedfrom the commodity that was produced, re-aggregated across various typesof attributes, and re-attached in the market-place to a product in theform of an “eco-tag” or “green tag” or product premium to be paid by thecommodity purchaser. Additionally, the standardized environmentalattributes may be pooled with other standardized attributes. The methodmay be applied so that it is performance based. That is, those producerswho do the most to maximize the production of EBCs will receive thehighest rewards. The method may also be applied as a methods-basedsystem, however methods-based approaches reward all who engage inspecific management methods equally regardless of final results.Therefore methods-based approaches create substantial marketinefficiencies. In addition this system can be utilized by thoserequired to report on their net environmental attributes such as netgreenhouse gas emissions. Also the system can be used by those engagedin EBC projects to provide independent third-party verification of theimpacts of proscribed management programs.

In one embodiment of the invention, general data and specific data areselectively input and analyzed in a modeling program to quantify theeffects of certain human activities on a particular environmentalattribute. An uncertainty analysis is conducted to determine thequantity of the environmental attributes that are deemed to meetspecified statistical confidence limits. This serves as a basis toestablish a certified pool of EBCs, with a defined, higher level ofcertainty, and a reserve pool of EBCs, with a lower level of certainty.Preferably, a user-friendly interface, such as an interactive website,is used to allow a user to 1) establish a baseline status; 2) explorealternative future strategies to estimate the effects of changes ininput data, particularly that involving human activities; and/or 3)perform a complete analysis and provide a final report for creditaggregation and marketing.

Examples of such standardized EBCs that may be generated through thepresent invention include: (1) green house gas (“GHG”) emissions offsetsfrom farmers and ranchers due to soil conservation practices (carbondioxide—CO₂), improved manure management (methane—CH₄, nitrousoxide—N₂O), improved fertilizer management or optimization (N₂O), orreduced energy use during operations (CO₂); (2) water pollution offsetsfrom farmers and ranchers due to reduction of erosion and sedimentdelivery to water bodies (sediment), reduced or optimized irrigation toreduce water withdrawals and contaminated irrigation water delivery, orremoval of drain tile (NO_(X); phosphates—PO₄), reduced nutrient lossesfrom fields and feedlots to surface and groundwater (NO₃, ammonia—NH₄,PO₄), reduced or optimized use of pesticides and herbicides of concern,such as Atrazine, improved management of livestock to prevent negativeriparian impacts and maintain stream channel integrity (sediment,nutrients) and decrease direct and indirect GHG production; and (3)criteria pollutant reduction due to reduced use or improved efficiencyof diesel and internal combustion equipment (oxygen—O₂, PM_(X), NO₃,)and optimized crop processing and transportation. Examples of EBCs thatmay be traded between regulated entities include: (1) GHG emissionsoffsets due to implementation of GHG and pollution mitigation efforts inconfined animal feeding operations, such as CH₄ recovery from coveredmanure lagoons or digesters, feed supplements to reduce entericproductions of CH₄, decreased production of nitrous oxide due toimproved manure handling practices, and energy efficiency projects incommodity handling or storage at farm cooperatives or private processingcenters; and (2) water pollution offsets from confined feedingoperations due to waste handling and runoff mitigation projects inexcess of regulatory requirements.

The methods and apparatus to generate standardized environmentalattributes include a system designed to generate, quantify andstandardize Carbon Emission Reduction Credits and Carbon EmissionOffsets that accrue as a consequence of specific land use managementpractices.

In general, there are six elements of a CERC: (1) a baseline ofemissions of specific greenhouse gases as a result of business as usualactivities; (2) additivity; (3) permanence; (4) leakage; (5) ownership;and (6) verification. These elements also apply to standardizedenvironmental attributes.

The business as usual baseline generally refers to the level ofgreenhouse gas emissions from continuing current management practices inthat particular industry. In the case of farmers, business as usualtypically is defined as conventional tillage agriculture, but may bespecifically determined for each land parcel based on the landmanagement history. Further, the business as usual baseline may bedefined as an average of a larger community, rather than a business asusual for an individual or a single entity. The business as usualactivities (“BAU”) can be based on the average management practice overa specified time. Often for small-grain agriculture, crop rotationsystems may span two, three, five or more years. Therefore the BAU mustbe long enough to capture the average management variability over aspecified land area. For industries such forestry, BAU is likely to spanmany decades.

The second element is additivity, which generally refers to humanactivity that causes a reduction in business as usual emissions. Thatis, the change between the level of greenhouse gas emissions under thebusiness as usual baseline and the lower level of emissions must becaused by human intervention. In the case of farmers, this typicallymeans changing land management away from the business as usual practiceof conventional tillage agriculture. Even with crops removing carbondioxide from the air, conventional tillage agriculture typically resultsin a net release of carbon dioxide into the air due to oxidation ofcarbon compounds contained in the soil. In general, as tillage intensitydecreases, thereby decreasing the amount of soil exposed to the oxygenin ambient air, carbon turnover also decreases, resulting in a decreasein the net carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. A change tominimum tillage, or to no tillage at all, typically results in lesscarbon dioxide emitted or even a net sequestration of atmosphericcarbon. A change from cropland to grassland can result in thesequestration of substantial amounts of carbon dioxide in the form oforganic carbon compounds that can accumulate in grassland soils. Humanactivity other than, or in addition to, changing land management awayfrom conventional tillage agriculture may also be employed to cause areduction in business as usual emissions. The concept of additionally iscurrently under development in international agreements. However, if aland parcel, e.g., a pasture, can be shown to have accumulated carbonover time, this carbon may not satisfy the concept of additionally if itaccrued as a result of changes in climate that are not the result ofhuman intervention.

The third element is permanence. The general objective of emissionstrading is to reduce atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases toallow time to develop the technology to decrease emissions into theatmosphere directly from the source. In this case, permanence typicallyis defined as the storage of carbon dioxide in the form of biomass orsoil organic carbon for a time period specified by regulation, typicallytwenty or thirty years. Generally, residence times for carbon removedfrom the atmosphere by forests can exceed decades, whereas soil carboncan have residence times that exceed hundreds to thousands of years.Therefore permanence is a contractual term that is defined by agreement.It may not mean “forever”.

The fourth element is absence of leakage, which generally means that thechanged human activity intended to generate a CERC or other EBC does notresult in an undesirable increase in greenhouse gas emissions in anotherpart of the biogeochemical cycle. In the case of carbon sequestration,CERCs are more valuable if the landowner can demonstrate that thechanged human activity that resulted in generation of the CERCs does notresult in increased emissions of other gases, such as nitrous oxide ormethane, as compared to business as usual emissions.

Another element to maximize the value of a CERC or EBC is documentationof ownership. That is, the entity offering to trade or sell a CERC orEBC must demonstrate that it is the owner of rights to the CERC or EBC.Although this typically will be the landowner-operator in the case ofsoil carbon sequestration, other scenarios are possible, e.g., where byagreement or operation of law another has rights to use all or part ofthe land.

Yet another requirement is verification, which generally refers to theability of a third party to verify the generation of the CERC through anapproved accounting process. Verification typically requires that theprocess employed be transparent, i.e., the process is documented so thata third party may review, analyze, understand and replicate it. Forexample, verification may include audits of data to ensure accuracy. TheCERC or EBC value generally will be maximized where the process employedto establish the CERC EBC directly corresponds to the method ofverification.

Direct measurement of the absolute amount of carbon or other element orcompound sequestered in a given parcel of land is difficult andexpensive. Further, the absolute amount of carbon in a specific soilsample may be highly variable for samples collected at individual pointswithin the parcel of land, due to the mean residence time of organicmatter in soils often being on the order of 1,000 years and due to soilcharacteristics often being quite spatially variable. Therefore, it maynot be practical to obtain an accurate, precise, reproducible, costeffective direct measurement of the relatively small amount of carbonadded to, or subtracted from, the carbon baseline for a land parcel overa period of several years to decades, the time periods required bycurrent and pending legislative protocols.

This invention recognizes that, although the total amount of carbon,nitrogen or other element or compound in a specific soil sample may bequite variable, the incremental carbon, nitrogen or other element orcompound stored as a result of specific land management practices overperiods of decades is much less variable, particularly since most soilshave been tilled in the past, at least in the United States and much ofthe industrialized world. This is because previously tilled soilscontain levels of organic carbon that are much lower than their organiccarbon saturation levels and therefore carbon storage over periods ofdecades is relatively insensitive to soil carbon variability.

This invention also recognizes that, to generate and quantify accruedand projected CERCs or EBCs with reasonable accuracy, it is notnecessary to measure the total organic content of the entire soilprofile, or even the absolute amount of carbon added to, or subtractedfrom, the soil since the baseline year. Rather, this inventionrecognizes that standardized CERCs or EBCs may be generated andquantified by estimating the incremental carbon, nitrogen, or otherelement or compound stored in the soil over time, e.g., since the baseyear, e.g., 1990.

This invention further recognizes that carbon sequestration, nitrogencapture, or the like, can be conceptualized as a national issue, whichallows one to reconcile aggregate sequestration estimates withcontinental-scale carbon and nitrogen flux estimates. That is, bycompiling CERCs and nitrogen-related EBCs from a number of landowners,one may more readily generate and quantify accrued and future valueswith reasonable accuracy for the compilation than for a single orsmaller group of landowners. Therefore, the allocation of suchattributes from the compilation to individual land parcels need notprecisely accurate. However, to be fair to the individual landowner, andto maximize free-market efficiencies, the quantification system usedshould be relatively specific, transparent, reproducible, traceable andverifiable. Generally, the same principles and characteristics in totalor in part as described above also apply to the production of EBCs.

One embodiment of the invention is directed to generating andquantifying standardized CERCs for a parcel of land through the use ofgeneral data for a given region encompassing the parcel of land byutilizing a carbon sequestration model and an uncertainty analysis. Thatis, it would not be necessary to have detailed, long term site-specificdata for a parcel of land. Preferably, the general data for the regiondates back as far as possible, more preferably back to approximately1900 and the region is as small a geographic region as possible, such asa county in the United States or an area of land that shares similarclimate. Often continental climate regions are on the order of thousandsof square kilometers. If available, site-specific data also may be used.More preferably, site-specific data from the base year (e.g. 1990) todate is used, along with the general data, to determine the standardizedCERCs and reserve CERCs through a carbon sequestration model anduncertainty analysis.

Referring to FIG. 1, one embodiment of the invention is depicted by aflow chart showing a method of generating standardized CERCs and reserveCERCs. General data is obtained 12, preferably from a databasecontaining geographically referenced data relevant to carbonsequestration in soil. As shown in FIG. 3, such general data 70 mayinclude one or more of general land use history data 72, general climatedata 74, general soil texture data 76 and other data 78. Site-specificdata 14 preferably also is obtained, more preferably from the landowneror other rights holder to the parcel of land. As shown in FIG. 4, sitespecific data 80 may include one or more of recent specific land usehistory data 82, preferably since the base year, e.g., 1990, or otheryear from which standardized CERCs are desired to be generated, lessrecent specific land use history data, preferably from before the baseyear, e.g., 1990, or other year from which standardized CERCs aredesired to be generated, specific soil texture data 86 and other data88. General data 12, preferably with at least some site-specific data14, are used to determine the approximate change in the level of carbonstorage in a media over a specified time period 40 through theapplication of a carbon sequestration model. A confidence threshold isidentified 42 and the standardized CERCs and reserve CERCs aredetermined 50 through the application of an uncertainty analysis. Forfuture CERC estimation, the most recent management data is extrapolatedbased on past performance and future plans (treatment scenario). Datafor climatic variables is also projected into the future. Then the BAUscenario and the treatment scenario both using identical data forvariables such as climate and soils that are not under managementcontrol are analyzed in identical manner using the appropriate numericalmodels. A confidence threshold 42 for the future scenario is alsoidentified and the standardized CERCs and future CERCs are determined 50through the application of an uncertainty analysis. The uncertaintyanalysis for future scenarios may also include economic models andbusiness models to include such variables as the projected price ofCERCs and of competing land management strategies in order to estimatethe projected management default rate for the specific land parcel andprojected management scenario. These factors can then be included in thecalculation of standardized CERCs and Reserve CERCs.

The method can be employed to generate standardized CERCs and reserveCERCs accrued over a specific time period, such as from the base year(e.g. 1990) to date, and/or project standardized CERCs and reserve CERCsbased on projecting certain general data and site-specific data for aspecified time period for both the BAU and the proposed futuremanagement scenarios. Generally the same principles and characteristicsin total or in part as described above also apply to the production ofEBCs.

Alternatively, as shown in FIG. 2, the geographic location of the landparcel is obtained 10 and used to obtain relevant general data for thatland parcel from data stored in a database containing geographicallyreferenced data relevant to carbon sequestration 12.

Also as shown in FIG. 2, the general data and/or the site-specific dataalternatively may be tested. One such test 16 may be to determine if thegeneral data and the site-specific data is sufficiently complete toallow the method to generate standardized CERCs. A first negativeresponse 18 preferably initiates a request to obtain additionalsite-specific data 14. A second negative response 20 preferablyinitiates a request to obtain additional relevant general data for theland parcel from the general database 12. A third negative response 22preferably initiates a stop command 24. A positive response 26 allowsthe method to continue.

Another test 28 that may be conducted is to determine whethersite-specific data are within prescribed ranges or values of possibleresponses. A negative response 30 preferably initiates a stop command32. A positive response 34 allows the method to continue.

In another embodiment of the invention, a combination of elements canprovide an integrated system to generate and quantify standardizedCERCs. These elements can include a systematic approach for gatheringand managing data, a modeling component for estimating CERCs based onavailable information, a scenario module to help landowners develop bestmanagement strategies for generating CERCs, a system to quantify theuncertainty and risk, and strategies for auditing and verifying datainputs that are consistent with current, pending and future greenhousegas emissions legislation.

Yet another embodiment of the invention, a method is employed 1) togenerate and quantify standardized CERCs that have accrued over aspecific time period, such as from the base year, e.g., 1990, to thepresent date, and/or 2) to generate and quantify standardized CERCs thatare projected to exist from the present date to a specific date in thefuture, based on land management practices or other commitments by thelandowner, and/or 3) to advise a landowner of standardized CERCs thatwould be projected to exist based on commitments to one or more landmanagement practices.

International greenhouse gas emission reduction protocols, such as theKyoto Protocol, typically specify a base year, e.g., 1990, upon which toestablish greenhouse gas emission reductions. Therefore, CERCs can begenerated by demonstrating human-caused incremental carbon storage sincethe base year, e.g., 1990, compared to business as usual emissions. Toestimate the incremental amount of carbon stored in the soil since thebase year (e.g. 1990) for a specific land parcel, it is preferred todetermine the available carbon reservoir, if any, of the soil from theidentified land parcel. That is, it is preferred to determine whetherthe land parcel contains essentially all the carbon it is capable ofcontaining, or whether the soil has a capacity to store additionalcarbon. If the carbon reservoir is not full, the land parcel may beamenable to land management practices to increase carbon storage andthereby demonstrate the element of additivity. The soil carbon reservoirneed not be determined precisely, since the sequestration rate of carboninto soil is most often relatively independent of how much carbon is inthe reservoir, as long as it is not full.

Several different carbon models are available to determine the availablecarbon reservoir, if any, within the soil and/or vegetation located on aparticular land parcel. The type and level of detail of the requireddata are dependent on the carbon model employed, although typically suchdata may be characterized as general and site-specific. General data mayinclude any data that has an impact on sequestration of atmosphericcarbon and that is not necessarily specific to a particular land parcel,and preferably includes crop behavior, soil response, carbon behaviorand calibration, as well as typical soil texture and land use referencedby geographic region or location. Site-specific data may include anydata about the specific geographic site in question that has an impacton sequestration of atmospheric carbon, and preferably includes climatedata, soil texture and land use history directed to the specific parcelof land.

For example, crop behavior refers to the impact of particular crops inincreasing carbon storage in soil, which is readily available fortypical crops, such as corn or soybeans. Climate data may includehistorical records of temperatures, precipitation, winds, etc., which iswidely available in the United States through a variety of sources, suchas the National Weather Service.

The soil texture for a given geographic location can be determined in anumber of ways, such as testing or public records, preferably byreference to NRCS, SSURGO data and/or STATSGO data.

Land use history generally refers to the land management practicesemployed over a period of years. Land use history data may becharacterized as general land use history data and site-specific landuse history data. General land use history data may be typical andaverage data for a geographic area encompassing the parcel of land, suchas a nation, state, or preferably a county in the United States, and mayinclude typical practices in the given geographic area, such as types ofcrops, tillage methods, fertilization, irrigation, grazing, planting andharvesting practices, and other practices affecting carbonsequestration. General land use history data may be available fromnational, regional, state, county and local sources, such as the U.S.Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies, individual stateagencies and county extension offices and other local sources.

Land use history data may also be characterized as site-specific, whichmay include the actual land management practices employed on that landparcel during specified time periods, e.g., types of crops, tillagemethods, fertilization, irrigation, grazing, planting and harvestingpractices, and other practices affecting carbon sequestration.Preferably, specific land use history data for a land parcel can beobtained from information provided by the landowner or, alternatively,from other historical sources, such as government and historicalrecords, or from both sources.

Preferably, a numerical model known as CSU Century, developed atColorado State University, is employed. CSU Century is a well-acceptednumerical modeling computer program designed to generally predict howmuch carbon is sequestrated in various ecosystems over time. It wasdeveloped originally for grassland ecosystems, but has been found to beaccurate for a wide range of ecosystems, ranging from the tropics ofAfrica to the Boreal regions of Canada. The CSU Century programgenerally requires extensive data regarding land use history, climateand soil texture, among other things. Other models can be used inaddition to Century or as a substitute for Century. For example, anensemble approach utilizing the output from several models can beutilized. In addition, site-specific data can incorporate measurementsof the carbon content and of incremental carbon sequestration astechnology makes the measurement approach more feasible. However, evenapproaches based purely on measurements of incremental carbonsequestered still will require the employment of a model utilizinggeneral data and site specific data in order to accurately factor outnon-human induced changes in carbon stores.

As noted, the invention recognizes that standardized CERCs may begenerated and quantified without calculating the absolute amount ofcarbon in the soil profile. Rather, the incremental carbon stored in thesoil over time, and especially since the base year, e.g., 1990, may beapproximated. This recognition greatly simplifies the analysis byallowing the use of less detailed and less complete data, particularlyas the time period in question lengthens.

For example, when used to determine the total organic carbon reservoirof an area of land, the CSU Century program generally requires extensiveand detailed land use history data over relatively long periods of time,including, among other things, the types of crop, the amounts offertilizer and when applied, the types and frequency of cultivation,irrigation amounts and when applied, organic matter additions, grazingsystems, planting and harvesting dates, and the types of harvest. Thesedata are gathered together as schedule files for use in the Centuryprogram. The present invention simplifies the use of carbonsequestration models by, among other things, recognizing that relevantdata from greater than 100 years ago may be relatively general andincomplete, data from approximately 1900 to the base year, e.g., 1990,preferably may be more specific and more complete than the older data,but need not necessarily be so, and data from base year (e.g. 1990) todate preferably may be relatively even more specific and even morecomplete.

Preferably, general data regarding typical land management practices,climate and soil texture from approximately 1900 through at least baseyear, e.g., 1990, can be collected from national, regional, state,county and/or other local public records, compiled and converted intodetailed schedule files to create a general database. Preferably, thegeneral database contains general data relevant to carbon sequestrationand referenced by geographic information, such as by nation, state,country, longitude, latitude and/or other geographic reference. Generaldata from base year, e.g., 1990, to date also may be collected andcompiled in the database.

The data in the general database more preferably can be compiledindependently of individual landowner input or data and can generate ageneric land use history for selected regions or locales. Such a genericland use history may have several uses. For example, generic land usehistories can be used to define the ranges of plausible responses thatare likely to be given by individual landowners within the geographicregion. If landowner responses fall outside of these prescribed ranges,the response can be targeted for verification and auditing. Also, ifsite-specific data are unavailable or incomplete for a given landownerin that geographic area, general data may be used to substitute for orsupplement site-specific data. A generic land use history based ongeneral data for a particular region alternatively can be used for allof the land use history for a given land parcel within the region.

Preferably, the general database may provide much of the data requiredby the carbon sequestration model to determine the available carbonreservoir, if any, and to generate and quantify standardized CERCs, bothaccrued and future. It is particularly advantageous for the generaldatabase to contain sufficient data for the time period prior to baseyear, e.g., 1990, for the carbon sequestration model to determine theavailable carbon reservoir, if any. With public records providing thedata for the time period prior to the base year, e.g., 1990,verification of resulting CERCs is simplified and expedited and thedocumentation requirements placed on the landowner are significantlyreduced, thereby reducing barriers for the landowner to engage in theCERC market and increasing the value of such engagement by reducinguncertainty.

Site-specific data, preferably from the landowner, also may be used forcertain land use history since the base year, e.g., 1990, such as thetypes of crops, tillage, fertilizer, irrigation, organic matter andgrazing since the base year, e.g., 1990. More preferably, the landownercan provide and document detailed site-specific data, such as the croptype, the type and time periods of tillage, the type, amount and timeperiods of fertilization, the type, amount and time periods ofirrigation, the type, amount and time periods of organic matteradditions and the type and number of animals grazing, if any. Mostpreferably, the available information is provided for relatively shorttime intervals, such as by month. The landowner provided site-specificdata also may be converted to detailed schedule files and stored in adata base.

To supplement or substitute for missing, incomplete or less accuratesite-specific data, general data may be used, preferably from thegeneral database. As the site-specific data are less accurate and/orless complete, the resulting CERCs will have a greater uncertainty,resulting in fewer standardized CERCs being generated and quantified, asdescribed below. Similarly, if certain site-specific data are notavailable from either public records or the landowner, general data maybe substituted, at the cost of increasing the fraction of CERCs held inthe reserve pool.

Inputting the general data and available site-specific data into thecarbon sequestration model can provide an initial analysis of whether ornot the carbon reservoir of a land parcel is full and define the netcarbon flux for the business as usual scenario. If this analysis showsthe possibility of additivity, then more specific and more recent datafrom the base year, e.g., 1990, may be used, if available, to determineincremental carbon storage for the period beginning in the base year,e.g., 1990, to the year of the analysis.

Similarly, the incremental carbon to be stored in the soil into futureyears may be projected, preferably based on the data already inputted,e.g., based on continuing current land use practices previously inputand based on entering variables not dependent on landowner behavior,such as long term weather projections. Also, the potential for storingincremental carbon into the future also may be projected by changing atleast one variable that is dependent on landowner behavior, e.g., landuse practices, particularly those associated with increasing carbonstorage in soils.

In a preferred embodiment, future carbon storage can be determined basedon the landowner providing alternative land use management practicesthat can be employed into the future. The relative carbon sequestrationpotential for each potential land use management practice can bedetermined by the methods described above and reported to the landowner.More preferably, the carbon sequestration potential for each alternativeland use management practice can be determined through the use of alook-up table consisting of a series of scenarios that have beenpre-analyzed for regionally important variables. Even more preferably,the landowner may provide such alternative land use management practicesthrough an interactive media that is capable of identifying certainvariables, offering alternatives to one or more variables, generatingand quantifying standardized future CERCs based on the selectedalternatives and providing a report. The analysis can include economicanalysis to determine projected commodity prices and alternativemanagement costs as well as potential income from CERC generation. Theresults preferably can be used by the landowner to assess variables tomaximize the generation of net income, as well as the number and valueof CERCs.

After the quantity of accrued and projected incremental carbon storageis determined, the results may be subjected to an analysis to check thedata and the modeling. Preferably, the data provided by the individualCERC producer can be analyzed to verify that the data is within expectedor prescribed ranges. Data found to be outside of such ranges can beflagged for independent verification and auditing. Auditing can includeanalysis of satellite data, aerial photographs or other data to insurehistorical accuracy and compliance.

The results also may be subjected to an analysis of uncertainty. Thisinvention recognizes that the use of an uncertainty analysis can allowthe use of general data for input variables into carbon sequestrationmodels to determine the approximate change in the level of carboncompounds in soil over specified time periods. The use of general datain such models is particularly advantageous for data for years datingback into time, such as prior to the base year, e.g., 1990, and back asfar as 1900 or earlier, for which site-specific data may be difficult orimpossible to document. The uncertainty analysis allows one to quantifythe relative level of uncertainty in the results of the sequestrationmodel and express it as standardized CERCs and reserve CERCs, asexplained in more detail below.

An uncertainty analysis generally performs a number of simulation runsin which certain key input variables are allowed to range across adistribution of reasonable values. The results for each simulation thencan be compiled and compared to determine the potential range ofvariation in carbon sequestration due to uncertainties in the inputdata. For example, an uncertainty analysis generally takes a given rangeof the input data and determines a range of possible results. Theuncertainty analysis can include submission of data to an ensemble ofmodels. Since every model has specific strengths and weaknesses, thisapproach can be used to quantify uncertainty.

Preferably a Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis is employed, either withthe individual models or with an ensemble of models, although a varietyof other methods may be used. In a Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis,input variables that affect the result are randomly assigned values thatfollow a particular distribution, such as Gaussian, although otherdistributions may be used, if more appropriate. A number of simulationsare conducted, each time again randomly assigning values to the keyinput variables. From the results accumulated from the simulations, theactual distribution U of values arising from the uncertainty in the keyvariables can be determined. If, for example, the actual distribution Uis Gaussian, a mean value X and a standard deviation S may be determinedusing standard statistical equations. X and S define a distribution ofpossible CERC values for that land parcel. According to the propertiesof a Gaussian distribution, X is considered the most probable value andS defines a spread of possible values around the mean.

To quantify the number of standardized CERCs for a land parcel, aconfidence threshold C may be defined in terms of the standard deviationof the calculated Monte Carlo distribution and expressed as aprobability, P=f(C), that the standardized CERCs will actually be storedin the soil. For example, if C is chosen to equal 0.95, then for anormal two-tailed Gaussian distribution, f(0.95)=2S and the standardizedCERCs would be equal to X−2S, and the reserve CERCs would be equal to2S. In that example, one may characterize the standardized CERC in termsof being 95% confident that one metric ton of carbon is or will beactually stored in the soil. In other words, for 100 identical landparcels, the amount of carbon calculated to be accrued in the soil willbe likely to lie within the defined range for 95 of those parcels. Theactual threshold C used in commercial practice may vary, e.g., fordifferent applications, for different collections of CERC producers, fordifferent potential CERC purchasers and other variables. The preferredthreshold C is approximately 0.90 or higher. The uncertainty analysisdescribed here includes the effects of physical and environmentalvariables. Additional variables that can affect carbon sequestration forfuture scenarios can include economic factors related to competing landuses. Therefore additional model simulations can be performed in orderto predict uncertainties for other sociological and market variables.For example, economic and marketing models can be utilized to estimateproducer compliance/default factors. These additional sources ofuncertainty would be included in the calculation of the standardizedCERC pool and the uncertainty CERC pool.

One advantage of this approach is that the analysis may be immediatelyset up using standard Gaussian input distributions, but the expecteddistributions of input variables may be refined over time as more databecomes available, such that the distribution of random values may mimicmore closely the distribution of values likely to actually occur.

In general, as the number of Monte Carlo simulations increases, and asthe number of different model approaches are applied, the accuracy ofthe results increases. Preferably, a complete uncertainty analysis isconducted on each parcel of land to best characterize the uncertaintyassociated with that land parcel. Preferably, approximately 100 toapproximately 1,000 small runs are conducted. Test results have shownthat 800-1,000 simulation runs produce a stable distribution of results.Additional or different simulations can be run to further improve theaccuracy of the results, particularly as computing technology continuesto improve. However, current system constraints may limit the number ofsimulation runs per land parcel and other factors may reduce the numberof simulation runs that can be conducted. Additional test results haveshown that approximately 200 simulation runs for each land parcel canproduce an uncertainty distribution similar to the results of 1,000simulation runs and thereby provide a reasonable estimate of uncertaintyfor individual land parcels. This preferred embodiment of approximately200 simulation runs currently provides a reasonable balance betweenaccuracy and practicality, while still providing a customizeduncertainty analysis for each parcel of land.

In addition to the uncertainty analysis for each parcel of land,additional uncertainty analyses may be conducted to improve thereliability of the results and to better understand the uncertaintydistribution U, among other things. These analysis may include socialand economic factors. Again, a Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis ispreferred, wherein the results for one or more of the land parcels maybe subjected to a similar analysis, but with a greater number ofsimulations, more preferably approximately 1,000 simulation runs. Agreater number of simulations, conducted repeatedly for many landowners,can provide information on the form of U and assist in choosing thepreferred function to calculate P=f(C), all as would be recognized byone skilled in the art.

In addition, these additional simulation results may be compared withthe results for 200 simulation runs. From each 1,000 simulation runs,subsets of 200 simulation runs may be extracted to determine and comparetheir statistical means and standard deviations to those of the 1,000simulation runs. This data preferably may be used to determine theamounts by which the results of a 200 simulation run set differs fromthe results of a 1,000 simulation run. For example, if a 200 simulationrun subset is found to typically underestimate the uncertainty range by2%, that variation may be added to the uncertainty calculated for eachland parcel.

Land parcels may be randomly selected for these 1,000 simulation runs,although preferably each land parcel is selected. Using currenttechnology on a single workstation, approximately 10 sets of 1,000simulation runs can be run in one day. Depending on the number oflandowner registrations received per day, this may result in as few asseveral percent or as many as 100% of landowners can be selected forfull analysis. Additional workstations may be dedicated to running thesesimulation runs, if necessary or desirable. Preferably, a minimum ofapproximately 5% of all land parcels would be subjected to these 1,000simulation runs.

Additional audits may be conducted. For example, selected input data maybe compared with satellite imagery or Farm Service Agency records toindependently confirm land use histories. As FSA data becomescomputerized, it becomes more practical to directly input this data intothe model using a computer script interface. For example, a landowner'sassertion that corn had been planted on a land parcel during a specificyear dating back to approximately 1980 may be verified by selectedlandsat images. Candidates for this type of auditing preferably would beidentified by specific indicators, such as certain landowner responsesfalling outside of expected ranges, e.g., as established by the generaldatabase. Some candidates also can be selected at random.

Although carbon sequestration is sensitive to many variables, thosevariables have been shown to be definable fairly accurately. In testsconducted according to the invention, data for sample parcels of land inSouth Dakota generally have resulted in an uncertainty of approximately5% for most runs conducted on the key variable of soil texture. Otheruncertainties, such as future climatic variables, can be evaluated aspart of the uncertainty analysis and generally will tend to be additive.

From the results of the uncertainty analysis, a fraction of the CERCsgenerated may be standardized and identified as available for trade,with the remaining CERCs placed in reserve. For example, if the totaluncertainty calculated were approximately 5%, preferably approximately95% of the CERCs generated would be certified as standardized CERCsavailable for trade and the remaining approximately 5% would be placedinto a reserve pool. In that example, if 100 CERCs had been calculated,then up to 95 standardized CERCs can be certified for trade and 5 CERCswould be included in the reserve pool. In the future, as data and carbonsequestration certification technology improves, the reserve poolpreferably may be reduced. Conversely, if future climate change or otherfactors demonstrate that the uncertainty is increased, the reserve poolpreferably may be increased. The actual percentage variation iscurrently being determined by uncertainty analysis and may be greaterthan the above example of 5%. Through this process, each CERC certifiedand traded may be standardized, such that it is equal in valueregardless of where it was generated. That is, a standardized CERCgenerated and quantified by the present invention may be a tradablecommodity.

The CERCs can then be compiled for trade, preferably in an open marketto a variety of potential CERC purchasers. Preferably, additionalstandardized CERCs from one or more other CERC producers, from a varietyof sources and geographic locations, can be additively pooled toincrease the size and value of the compilation. Ownership of the CERCscan remain with the landholder and the pooled CERCs can be marketed onthe basis of date of generation, or on the basis of the producer'scontribution to the pool (similar to a cooperative). In this case, theindividual landowner is liable for his portion of the CERCs deliveredand a portion of the proceeds must be reserved for future monitoring andverification expenses. Another embodiment would be to transfer ownershipof individual credits to a third-party aggregator who assumes liabilityfor monitoring and delivering CERCS to purchasers. Once standardizedCERCs and EBCs are generated many aggregation and marketing strategiesare possible as has been demonstrated for other commodities. Throughsuch a system of the present invention, CERC generators and CERCpurchasers can more readily communicate and evaluate the availability ofCERCs of demonstrated quality and quantity, resulting in a lower risk tothe CERC purchaser, higher price to the CERC generator and a moreequitable result for all involved.

The quantity of incremental carbon storage that was initiallycalculated, but determined to not meet the established standards for aCERC certified for trade, may be identified and retained in a reserve orindemnification pool. Preferably, these results and the underlying dataare maintained and combined in the indemnification pool with similarresults and data from other landowners. This process preferably mayreduce or eliminate the need for CERC purchasers to buy relativelyexpensive insurance for protection against the carbon storage being lessthan expected.

The standardized CERCs, whether accrued or projected, also may besubjected to confirmation or testing. This invention recognizes that, bycollecting and offering for trade a collection of CERCs generated byland use management of a number of landowners over a relatively largergeographic area, the aggregate reduction of business as usual greenhousegas emissions need only be independently confirmed, e.g., by regulatoryagencies. That is, the accuracy of CERC generation for an individualparcel of land within that aggregate generally would not be an issue tothe CERC purchaser. Generally, as the land area increases, the testingfor CERC generation becomes easier, more accurate and more costefficient. For example, CERCs generated over a several hundred orseveral thousand square mile region are more readily susceptible totesting, such as by reconciling with ambient carbon dioxideconcentrations and isotopic tracer techniques.

For the global CERC market, the potential CERC purchaser is concernedthat the number of CERCs actually has been, or will be, generated to thesatisfaction of the applicable governing bodies. Currently, thistypically requires independent verification to determine that the methodto generate and quantify the CERCs is transparent and repeatable. In thelong run under current protocols, the aggregate carbon balance of anentire nation would be validated based on independent assessmenttechnology. In the case of carbon sequestration, the validation wouldlikely be based on the results of intensive long term research atselected research sites and it is unlikely that each parcel of land, ora random selection of parcels of land, would be tested. Currently such aprocess would be difficult scientifically and not feasible economicallyfor each CERC trade. However, additional technological and scientificimprovements can change those dynamics to allow individual or randomverification. Such advances can be readily incorporated to generate andquantify standardized CERCs according to the present invention.Generally the same principles and characteristics in total or in part asdescribed above also apply to the production of EBCs.

In another embodiment of the invention, standardized CERCs may begenerated and quantified by identifying categories of information todetermine the relative level of carbon sequestration, obtainingavailable information, estimating the change in carbon storage in aselected media since the base year, e.g., 1990, estimating the change incarbon storage in selected media into the future depending on certaininput variables, conducting an uncertainty analysis and quantifyingstandardized CERCs.

In a preferred embodiment of the invention, individual CERC producerscan register and provide site-specific data regarding carbonsequestration, the producer provided site-specific data may be combinedwith general data from a general database of previously acquiredinformation, and input into a carbon sequestration model, incrementalcarbon storage can be calculated that has been previously generatedand/or that is projected to be generated, the calculated result can besubjected to an uncertainty analysis to quantify the number of CERCsthat meet an established standard of certainty, the standardized CERCscan be collected into a primary pool with standardized CERCs from otherlandowners, other incremental carbon storage can be collected into areserve pool with similar results from other landowners, and the primarypool can be marketed to potential CERC purchasers. As data and/oranalyses is improved or updated, incremental carbon storage from thereserve pool may be released to the primary pool. This invention allowsan individual landowner, or a group of landowners, to generate,quantify, certify, market and trade standardized CERCs, both accrued andprojected.

For the example of an individual or individual entity landowner, thelandowner preferably may identify the parcel of land and receive anadvisory report that quantifies possible accrued and/or futurestandardized CERCs, based on the previously stored general data in thedatabase. Alternatively, the landowner may be requested to provideavailable site-specific data in response to particular inquiresregarding the land and land use history in order to generate a morecustomized advisory report. Preferably, the advisory report wouldinclude the number of accrued standardized CERCs determined to beavailable for trade and the quantity of reserve CERCs. Alternatively,the landowner can select to change one or more of the input variablesregarding future land management practices and receive a report thatincludes projections of future standardized CERCs based on the one ormore changed input variables. The landowner preferably may conductmultiple analyses to better assess the impact of certain land managementpractices on CERC generation. Generally the same principles andcharacteristics in total or in part as described above also apply to theproduction of EBCs.

In another embodiment of the invention, a method to generate andquantify standardized CERCs includes obtaining selected information fromat least one landowner, obtaining selected information from a data base,inputting selected information from the landowner and from the data baseinto a carbon sequestration model to determine the approximate change inthe level of carbon sequestered in the land parcel over a specified timeperiod, conducting an uncertainty analysis on the results and providinga report to the landowner.

Information from a landowner preferably is obtained through aninterface, which may be any media through which the landowner mayidentify the geographic location of the land at issue and optionallyinput other data, such as land use history data, relevant to carbonsequestration. For example, the interface may involve the landownermanually completing written forms, verbally responding to inquiries,forwarding other documentation or information, otherwise providingrequested data or combinations thereof. Generally the same principlesand characteristics in total or in part as described above also apply tothe production of EBCs.

In a preferred embodiment, the interface comprises an automated inquiryand response system, allowing the landowner to input certain informationin response to certain inquiries. For example, the interface preferablywould request the landowner to identify the landowner, the parcel ofland and other site-specific data relevant to carbon sequestration. Morepreferably, the results from the landowner interface are compared with adatabase containing general data, and optionally site-specific data,relevant to generating and quantifying standardized CERCs to identifymissing, incomplete or mis-entered data and to request additionalinformation.

The interface also preferably requests site-specific data regarding theland and land use history of that parcel of land, including the actualland use practices employed during specific time periods, e.g., types ofcrops, tillage, fertilizer, irrigation, etc., as described in moredetail above. More preferably, detailed and documented site-specificdata is requested on a monthly basis for each year dating back to atleast the base year, e.g., 1990.

In a more preferred embodiment, the interface includes a websiteaccessible to a potential CERC producer that facilitates the data inputfrom the potential CERC producer. Additionally, the website preferablyincludes additional information and reference material, such asbackground information regarding carbon sequestration and the globalCERC market, current news relevant to CERC markets, a description of theprocess employed to generate and quantify standardized CERCs and theindemnification pool, a compilation of statistics relating to CERCs, anda compilation of accrued and projected CERCs from other CERC producers.

The database may be any compilation of data relevant to sequestration ofatmospheric greenhouse gases and preferably includes a compilation ofgeographically referenced information. Preferably, the database containsboth site-specific data and general data that have an impact onsequestration of atmospheric greenhouse gases. As described above,site-specific data preferably includes climate, soil texture and landuse history, among other things, and general data preferably includescrop behavior, soil response, carbon behavior and calibration, amongother things. More preferably, the general data can be obtained frompublic records and placed in a format referenced or indexed bygeographic location.

The site-specific data from the landowner and the relevant general datafrom the database can be input into a carbon sequestration modelingprogram to determine the available carbon reservoir, if any, in theparticular parcel of land and the incremental carbon stored in the landsince the base year, e.g., 1990. Again, preferably the CSU Centuryprogram is employed to make this determination.

The information from the landowner may be entered into the carbonsequestration modeling program or programs in a variety of ways,preferably data input is automated and more preferably data input isautomated through a website accessible to the landowner. In oneembodiment of the invention, the system receives site-specific data fromthe landowner, determines or obtains the geographic location of theparcel of land, identifies the site-specific data, if any, and thegeneral data relevant to that parcel of land stored in the database,identifies the business as usual scenario for the land parcel andsubmits the collected information to the carbon sequestration modelingprogram. The system may further compare the data inputted by thelandowner with the data from the database to identify potential errorsor mis-entries, which preferably may be flagged for independent review.

The carbon sequestration modeling program then can calculate theavailable carbon reservoir, the incremental carbon stored since the baseyear, e.g., 1990, and the incremental carbon projected to be stored fora specified time period into the future, based on continuing the currentland management practices and projecting other variables not dependenton the landowner, all as described above. The results can be subjectedto an uncertainty analysis, preferably a Monte Carlo uncertaintyanalysis, again as described above. Accrued and projected standardizedCERCs can be calculated and compiled, with other incremental carbonstorage being quantified and held in a reserve pool.

The results of the analysis can be communicated to the landowner,preferably in a report and more preferably in a report directly throughthe interface. Preferably, the system can allow the landowner anopportunity to run the analysis multiple times for future scenarios,with the landowner or another selectively changing one or more of thevariables, in order to determine the impact of the change on thegeneration of standardized CERCs. For example, the landowner may desireto analyze the impact of changing the type of crops planted, the amountof fertilizer used, the frequency of irrigation, the level of tillage,the time of harvest, etc. The system allows the farmer to input anyvariable, or combination of variables, run the analysis and receive areport quantifying projected standardized CERCs. More preferably, thesystem identifies the variables that the landowner is able to change,identifies multiple choices for that variable and provides a mechanismfor the landowner to select one or more of the choices.

In a more preferred embodiment, the system comprises a computerinterface with the landowner, in which the landowner is requested toinput requested information regarding the location of the parcel of landand land management practices employed on an annual basis since at leastas early as the base year, e.g., 1990. More preferably, the informationis requested in the form of multiple choice responses to particularinquires of land management practices. The system can take theinformation inputted from the landowner, identify and obtain relevantinformation from the database, submit the landowner and databaseinformation into a carbon sequestration modeling program, submit theresults to an uncertainty analysis program, calculate accrued andprojected standardized CERCs available for trade, as well as accrued andprojected reserve CERCs, and generate a report for the landowner.

In an even more preferred embodiment, the landowner can input requestedsite-specific data via a website. The inputted data can beelectronically transferred, along with relevant data retrieved from theelectronically stored database containing the other site-specific data,if available, and general data relevant to that land parcel, to a carbonsequestration modeling program and to an uncertainty analysis program.From the results, standardized CERCs can be quantified, whether accruedor projected, and placed in a compilation of other standardized CERCsfrom other landowners. Results that do not meet the standards for astandardized CERC are placed in a compilation of other similar resultsand held as a reserve or indemnification pool. The compilation ofstandardized CERCs can be offered for trade on the open market.

More specifically, a more preferred embodiment of the inventioncomprises linkages between at least four components: 1) a website toobtain information from, and disseminate information to, one or morelandowners; 2) a database structure to store collected information fromthe one or more landowners; 3) a database structure, such as a generaldatabase, to store collected information from other sources relevant tocarbon sequestration; and 4) one or more data processors adapted to runa carbon sequestration modeling program and/or an uncertainty analysisprogram. The linkages allow information to be passed between thecomponents, and allow that actions in one component, such as thesubmission of a request from the website to “quantify the standardizedCERCs,” initiate a sequence of actions whereby each component performsits designated task in its designated order to produce the desiredresult. Generally the same principles and characteristics in total or inpart as described above also apply to the production of EBCs.

In the more preferred embodiment, the linkages operate automaticallythrough a collection of computer programs, scripts and daemons, whichtogether pass the needed information between the components and initiatethe desired actions. For example, when the landowner submits a requestto quantify the standardized CERCs, the database transfers thelandowner's input data in a specific format to a specific directory onthe computer running the carbon sequestration model. A daemon in thatcomputer watches for information to appear and, when finding data in theinput directory, initiates a master script program. The master scriptprogram calls a geographic information system routine to process thesite location of the land parcel and obtain stored values in thedatabase for general data, such as soil texture, climate and generalland use history. These obtained values are placed in a data directoryand control is returned to the master script. The master script thencalls a set of Perl scripts which parse the appropriately formattedinput files required by the carbon sequestration model. The masterscript calls the carbon sequestration model to perform its program andthen the uncertainty analysis program to perform its program. Theresults are placed into a special output directory in specificallyformatted files and the master script deletes the input files to preventthe initiation of another run. A different daemon watches for outputfiles to appear and, when such output files are found, it calls a scriptto parse and interpret the results and a final report file containingthe standardized CERCs and uncertainty is produced. Another daemon onthe database system watches for this output file, transfers the resultsinto the database and notifies the landowner by an appropriate methodthat the results are completed and may be viewed, e.g., on the website.

Another embodiment of the invention comprises an apparatus to generateand quantify standardized CERCs, which may include an interface with thelandowner, a data structure adapted to store data relevant to carbonsequestration, such as land use history, soil texture and climate data,a data processor adapted to run a carbon sequestration modeling program,a data processor adapted to run an uncertainty analysis program and amechanism to generate and provide a report to the landowner. Theapparatus preferably is designed to allow individual landowners, orgroups of landowners, to input requested information and receive reportsquantifying accrued and projected standardized CERCs, as well as CERCsto be held in reserve.

Referring now to FIG. 5, an apparatus 100 comprises a producer interface110, an operator interface 120, a data structure 130 and a dataprocessor 140. Preferably, the producer interface 110 is adapted toreceive data input by a potential CERC producer, more preferably inresponse to particular inquiries regarding the geographic location andsize of the land parcel and its land use history. The producer interface110 also preferably is adapted to receive a report from the dataprocessor 140 and provide it to the potential CERC producer. Theoperator interface 120 is adapted to receive data by an operator,preferably geographically referenced general data relating to factorshaving an impact on carbon sequestration, such as climate, soil textureand land use history.

The data structure 130 is adapted to receive and store data from theproducer interface 110 and preferably also is adapted to receive andstore data from the operator interface 120. Alternatively, a separatedata structure (not shown) may be used to receive and store data fromthe operator interface 120. More preferably, the data structure 130 isadapted to receive and store site-specific data 112 from the producerinterface 110 and general data 122 from the operator interface 120. Asdescribed above, the general data 122 preferably is geographicallyreferenced.

The data processor 140 is adapted to identify the appropriate data fromthe data structure 130, including the data from the producer interface110 and the data from the operator interface 120. Preferably, the dataprocessor 140 is adapted to use the input geographic location of theland parcel to identify and obtain geographically referenced generaldata 122 stored in the data structure 130. The data processor 140 isadapted to use the site-specific data 112 and the identified generaldata 122 to determine the approximate change in the level of carboncompounds stored in the defined media over a specified period of time,preferably through the operation of a carbon sequestration modelingprogram.

Preferably, the data processor 140 also is adapted to receive theresults of this determination and the data on which they were based andconduct an uncertainty analysis, preferably a Monte Carlo uncertaintyanalysis, to quantify standardized CERCs and reserve CERCs.Alternatively, a separate data processor (not shown) may be used toconduct the uncertainty analysis. The data processor 140 also may beadapted to generate a report and provide the report to the potentialCERC producer, more preferably through producer interface 110.

In another embodiment of the invention, a system to generate, quantify,standardize, pool and trade carbon emission reduction credits isdisclosed. This system includes a method and apparatus to obtain dataand commitments from one or more potential CERC producer, combine theobtained data with data obtained from other sources, quantify accruedstandardized CERCs, projected standardized CERCs, and remaining carbonemission reductions not included in the standardized CERCs and compileaccrued and projected standardized CERCs for trade. Preferably, thecompiled accrued and projected standardized CERCs are marketed for tradeafter a certain quantity of such standardized CERCs has been compiled.

The accrued and/or projected standardized CERCs may be marketed or soldthrough a wide variety of means, including direct solicitation topotential CERC purchasers, advertising, auction, etc. Preferably, thestandardized CERCs are placed in the open market for sale or trade viaan on-line auction or through one or more on-line auction services.

In another embodiment of the invention, one or more other variableswhich limit the acceptance of a standardized CERC may be identified,analyzed, estimated or preferably quantified and communicated to thepotential CERC purchaser. This can operate to reduce, or preferablyremove, a variable for the potential purchaser, thereby increasing itsvalue to the CERC producer.

For example, the CERC requirement of ownership may be analyzed, anuncertainty determined and the conclusion presented to the potentialCERC purchaser. Preferably, the landowner is requested to provideinformation in response to questions directed to ownership and otherrights to the land that may have an impact on the ownership of CERCsgenerated from the prior or future land use. Such inquires may includethe identity of all entities with potential rights to ownership, use,occupation, easement, etc. of the land, the nature of such rights andthe parties practices. The inputted ownership information is compiledand can be directly communicated to the potential CERC purchaser.Preferably, the inputted ownership information is analyzed, whether by aperson or a program, to assess possible ownership issues and to providea report. Generally, a response that no such other entity exists woulddecrease the risk of an ownership issue, whereas a positive responsewould enable a potential CERC purchaser to more accurately assess such arisk.

Similarly, the requirements of leakage and permanence may be included inthe determination of establishing a standardized CERC. Preferablyadditional inquiries are submitted to the landowner designed toidentify, ascertain and assess issues related to leakage and/orpermanence of any CERCs generated through the management of the parcelof land. For example, to establish permanence, the landowner may berequired to certify the practice of a specific agricultural rotationsequence for defined time period. In a more specific example, thelandowner may document past land use history and certify the practice ofno-till wheat cultivation for three out of the next ten years. Based onlandowner submissions, a fraction of the CERCs generated, if any, can bestandardized for trade and a fraction can be held in reserve.

An example of the operation of one embodiment of the invention follows.A potential CERC producer accesses a website that includes backgroundand reference material, as well as an interactive interface capable ofreceiving and transmitting data. In response to an inquiry, thepotential CERC producer identifies a parcel of land by geographiclocation.

The geographic location is utilized to identify the specific land parceland the total area of the land parcel. The geographic location also isused to obtain general data relevant to carbon sequestration in soil forthat land parcel from a database containing geographically referencedgeneral data relevant to carbon sequestration in soil, such as land usehistory, climate and soil texture. A baseline level of business as usualcarbon emissions is also obtained, preferably from a database of suchbaseline levels referenced by geographic location and/or type ofactivity, such as farming. The relevant general data is input into acarbon sequestration model to determine whether the carbon reservoir ofthe soil is full. If it is full, the soil is not capable of satisfyingthe requirement of additivity and CERCs will not be generated. If thecarbon reservoir is not full, the potential CERC producer is prompted toprovide additional site-specific data.

The site-specific data requested may depend on the geographic locationof the land parcel. Typically, the potential CERC producer would berequested to identity, as accurately and as completely as possible,detailed land use history for each year since the base year, e.g., 1990,such as 1) the type, planting month and senescence of annual plants onthe land; 2) the type, first growth month and senescence of perennialplants on the land; 3) the type of cultivation each month; 4) the type,form and amount of each fertilizer each month; 5) the type and amount oforganic matter additions each month; 6) the type and amount ofirrigation each month; 7) the type and yield of harvest each month; 8)whether winter grazing or pasture grazing; and 9) if pasture grazing,the type and number of animals grazing each month.

The site-specific data may be tested. For example, if the site-specificdata is not complete, the website may prompt the potential CERC producerfor additional information. If the site-specific data is still notcomplete thereafter, the general database may be accessed to determineif general data is available to substitute for the missing site-specificdata. If such general data is obtained or used, the uncertainty analysisis adjusted to reflect the greater level of uncertainty of that data.Other tests also may be conducted, such as testing the site-specificdata to determine if it falls within prescribed ranges or values ofrelated general data from the database and comparing input data forspecific years to satellite-imagery to determine congruence.

The site-specific data, along with the general data relevant to the landparcel obtained from the general database, as well as the baselinelevel, are input into a carbon sequestration model to determine theapproximate change, if any, in the level of carbon compounds stored inthe soil since the base year, e.g., 1990. In this example, the potentialCERC producer is only requested to provide data back to the base year,e.g., 1990, while the database provides all data prior to the base year,e.g., 1990. Even with the use of such general data, standardized CERCsmay be generated and quantified with reasonable and acceptable accuracyby the use of an uncertainty analysis.

The data input and therefore the results of the carbon sequestrationmodel are subjected to an uncertainty analysis, whereby the relativeuncertainty of the results can be quantified, based on a desiredconfidence threshold. The approximate change in the level of carboncompounds in the soil may then be expressed as standardized CERCs andreserve CERCs, accrued since the base year, e.g., 1990, to the date ofthe analysis. The results are communicated to the potential CERCproducer through the website. Generally the same principles andcharacteristics in total or in part as described above also apply to theproduction of EBCs.

The website also will allow a determination of the amount of futurestandardized CERCs that may be generated if the CERC producer were tocommit to certain actions into the future. For example, in response toinquiries, the potential CERC producer inputs data as to future actionsfor defined time periods, such as changing to no till agriculture forten years, or rotating soybeans and corn every other year for eightyears, etc. Preferably, the website identifies possible actions thatwould most increase standardized CERC generation, based on thesite-specific data and general data previously entered, and prompts thepotential CERC producer to select from one or more of a plurality ofchoices. The selected data is inputted, the carbon sequestration modelprogram and uncertainty analysis are conducted, future standardizedCERCs and future reserve CERCs are quantified and the results arecommunicated to the potential CERC producer.

The potential CERC producer optionally may request one or morealternative runs to determine the projected number of futurestandardized CERCs, based on changing selected input variables. Thepotential CERC producer preferably is given the opportunity tocontractually commit to a specific course of action for a specific timeperiod, and is awarded the number of projected future standardized CERCsand reserve CERCs based thereon.

The accrued standardized CERCs are placed into a pool of accruedstandardized CERCs with those of other CERC producers, the futurestandardized CERCs are place into a pool of future standardized CERCswith those of other CERC producers and the reserve CERCs are placed intoa reserve pool with those of other CERC producers. These pools,separately or in combination, may be offered for sale, preferably on theopen market though competitive bidding.

Because the landowner supplies much of the data used to generate andquantify standardized CERCs, the costs can be reduced. Because alandowner is not required to supply detailed land use history data orother data prior to the base year, e.g., 1990, and perhaps not evencomplete data after the base year, e.g., 1990, and is not required tosupply other data such as climate data, greater numbers of landownerscan participate in generating CERCs and contributing to a pool of CERCswith other landowners. Because the process to generate and quantify thestandardized CERCs is transparent and reproducible, it is well suitedfor independent verification and auditing by third parties. Because theprocess is flexible, it may be modified to respond to evolving carbontrading and greenhouse gas reduction policies and regulations and toincorporate evolving technology and science findings. Overall, themethod and apparatus of the present invention are designed to facilitatethe participation of individual landowners in the CERC market, maximizethe value of the CERC generated, increase the price paid to the CERCgenerator and lower the risk to the CERC purchaser. Generally the sameprinciples and characteristics in total or in part as described abovealso apply to the production of EBCs.

The invention described herein may alternatively be used in a variety ofresource management related issues. For example, a module may be addedthat is linked to soil-erosion and hydrology models. A landowner thenmay enter the coordinates for a specific land parcel and receive a planfor the specific locations of grassland buffer strips that woulddecrease soil erosion by specific amounts. Alternatively, a module maybe added to generate and quantify standardized CERCs based on capturingmethane emissions from manure storage and processing lagoons. Thesealternative projects share several common elements, including acustomized data base, such as a general database, to define importantcontrolling variables, a producer-accessible interface forproject-specific data, linkages to data processors adapted to runnumerical models and data processors adapted to run uncertaintyanalyses. These systems are designed to readily adapt to current andevolving regulatory requirements.

The invention also may be advantageously applied to sequestration and/orreduction of emissions of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide.These greenhouse gases may include nitrous oxide and methane, or anyother greenhouse gas identified by the International Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), regulatory agency or other authority. The invention alsomay be advantageously applied to reduction of business as usualgreenhouse gas emissions and/or sequestration into media other thansoil, such as trees, other vegetation, aquatic systems and marinesystems.

The invention also may be advantageously applied where CERCs areproduced as a consequence of substitution of renewable carbon, such asbiomass and/or methane from landfills, for fossils fuels. The specificmodule would be designed to define the CERC production and uncertaintyto normalize their value and document their compliance with regulatoryrequirements.

In another embodiment of the invention, one or more of the methodsdescribed herein can be used to quantify and normalize CERC generationfor businesses engaged in carbon sequestration projects or to othergreenhouse gas mitigation efforts, including, e.g., emissions of methanefrom animal feedlots and manure storage facilities. Modules can be addedto quantify CERCs that will meet the regulatory requirements fordocumenting CERC generation for those applications. This reduces andpreferably eliminates uncertainty for the potential CERC purchaser,thereby increasing the value of the CERC to the CERC producer.

In yet another embodiment of the invention, one or more of the methodsdescribed herein can be used by those who regulate and/or reportgreenhouse gas emissions and/or mitigation efforts. This would provideverification of local, regional, national and international greenhousegas reduction efforts.

The invention also may use the methods and apparatus described above togenerate a variety of other standardized environmental attributes thatresult from specific land use, or other practices involved in theproduction of services or products, such as commodities, or otherpractices in the use of land. In one application, the invention may beused to generate standardized environmental attributes ofland-parcel-specific land use management. This allows the disaggregationof the environmental attribute from the commodities that are produced asa result of these specific land use management practices. In addition,the environmental attributes can be monetized through application ofappropriate economic models. This standardization process allows themixing of various types of attributes. The attributes can then be soldindependently or they can be re-attached to products at the point ofsale in the form of “eco-tags”, or “green tags.” The framework of such amethod and apparatus can be utilized and modified as necessary in orderto keep track of the “eco-tags” generated by specific producers andallocate the income generated at the point of sale back to the producersin an equitable, transparent, accountable way.

These embodiments of the invention build on the framework of the systemsdescribed above for gathering temporally and spatially-specificmanagement data from producers (for example farmers and ranchers), andplacing these data within the context of a geographic information system(GIS) containing the geo-rectified data necessary to quantify thephysical, and/or the biological and/or the ecological impacts of saidspecific management practices used and/or projected to be used duringthe production of the commodities. The data, gathered through a seriesof questionnaires preferably delivered over the Internet oralternatively gathered through interviews with the producer, are thenutilized as input for a numerical model or as input for a series ofnumerical models. These models are then used to quantify the physicaland/or the biological and/or the ecological impacts of thespecifically-defined management practice located on thespecifically-defined land parcel.

An analysis of uncertainty is then performed, preferably as describedabove, however applied here for the purpose of accounting for sources ofuncertainty inherent in the quantification of the physical, and/or thebiological and/or the ecological impacts of the management strategy usedto produce a specific commodity, in order to allow quantification thatwill produce standardized units of effects. Examples of relevant unitsmay include the mass of a specific pollutant that was avoided, theamount of greenhouse gas avoided, and/or the amount of energy requiredfor production compared to a business as usual scenario.

Further, the process of utilizing producer-specific questionnaires,linked to and incorporated within a GIS system and delivered to anumerical model or delivered to a series of numerical models and furtherlinked to a process to quantify the uncertainty of the data, preferablythe Monte-Carlo process, thus producing a pool of quantified effects“certified” to exist at a specified confidence interval, preferably the95% confidence interval (any specified confidence interval can be used)and also creating a pool of “uncertain effects” will be designed inorder to accurately quantify and to standardize the specific physical,and/or biological, and/or ecological units of impact. This process isdesigned to facilitate the aggregation of such impacts acrosswatersheds, ecological regions and even across continents.

Further, the quantified physical, and/or biological and/or ecologicalimpacts may be linked to an economic model or to a series of economicmodels designed to quantify the value of such quantified, standardizedattributes. In the preferred embodiment, these models are based on thetheory that the value of the said attributes will related to the cost ofremediation. For example, the value of installing a vegetatedbuffer-strip to keep soil from eroding from a field and into a watershedcan be calculated to be equal to the cost of dredging sediment from thewatershed and replacing it back on the land parcel. This processfacilitates the conversion of said attributes into economically liquidunits or “eco-tags” that are thus standardized across various commodityproduction systems and across various physical, and/or biological,and/or ecological attributes.

The infrastructure of a method and apparatus of this invention mayfurther be leveraged with the addition of modules to produce “eco-tags”in order to generate producer income for attributes for which society iswilling to pay. Additionally, the invention preferably is adapted totrack the eco-tags to the point of sale and provide the properaccounting so that producers, such as farmers and ranchers, are rewardedappropriately. For this point, the eco-tag can be virtually created andtracked. Alternatively, each standardized or “certified” eco-tag canincorporate a rf-tag, which is a small transmitting chip uniquely codedto identify and track the original generator of the specific tag and/orclass of tags. In this case, the tag can be physically attached to theproduct. When the product is sold and the rf-tag is scanned, the revenuegenerated by the sale can be tracked, removed from the appropriatepurchaser account and placed into the appropriate generator account.This process facilities tracking, reduced accounting and other costs andreduced layers of involvement by third parties.

One embodiment of the invention is as follows. Farmers and ranchersproduce commodities, such as milk, meat, hay, grain, etc. Thesecommodities are valued by society. The production of these commoditiesby some producers also imposes costs to society in the form of pollutionand sedimentation. The positive attributes or embodiments of suchproduction can be quantified and standardized, aggregated ordisaggregated from the commodity produced, and re-bundled to create amarketable, enhanced value product, such as a “Green Tag” for consumerproducts. For example a farmer can produce pesticide-free corn. Thisinvention can be used to quantify the pesticide reduction from abaseline level and issue green tags to the producer. The producer canthen bundle the tags with the commodity if, for example the pesticidewould be present at trace levels in the corn produced, or, preferably,the tags can be disaggregated from the commodity and sold separately tothose who must remediate pollution downstream.

The following are additional illustrative examples of the invention.

Example A

Atrizine is a herbicide that has been demonstrated to be mobile,persistent, and to adversely affect the environment. A module to a CERCSystem infrastructure can be used to collect information from producersso that they can certify that they did not use atrizine to produce thecurrent crop. This documented, quantified attribute can then be bundledwith the commodity to its point of use. However, isolating and trackingcommodities such as grain from producer to market is extremely expensiveand often impossible. Since atrizine is not physically present in thecommodity that is to be sold, the attribute can be separated in the formof a premium, or “green tag,” for atrazine-free grain. The green-tag canthen be marketed to clean-water stakeholders in a similar way as “greentags” for energy are sold to electricity consumers. Alternatively, thevalue of the eco-tag can be normalized through the use of an economicmodel to estimate remediation costs. This will allow mixing of variouskinds of eco-tags. These tags can then be attached to products at thewholesale or retail level.

Example B

The CERC System to certify carbon sequestration can also be expanded toevaluate whole-farm energy usage, resulting in the production of variouseco-tags, such as “carbon neutral” crop tags. Such carbon-neutral tagscan then be marketed to stakeholders, or alternatively be quantified,disaggregated from the commodity, normalized and mixed with“atrizine-free” or other eco-tags and re-attached to the commodity atthe market place.

Example C

A farmer can utilize an Internet interface, preferably an interface asdescribed above for a CERC system, to identify a specific land parcel.The producer can then request an analysis of erosion potential. Based onthe information in the underlying GIS system (also preferably used toquantify carbon sequestration), numerical models can be used to designand place buffer strips in appropriate places to minimize the productionof sediment. The farmer is delivered a map, preferably over theinternet, upon which a system of buffer strips designed to meet aspecified level of sediment reduction have been drawn, preferably by anautomated computer system. Buffer strips that cover only about fivepercent of the land area typically can reduce sediment production by50%. The farmer can then plant the required buffer strip and adesignated time period later, such as two years, the CERC System can beused to verify buffer placement, such as by satellite imagery. Ifappropriate, the farmer will be issued sediment-reduction “eco-tags”.

In one embodiment, stakeholders would purchase such tags. For example,in the Missouri River in South Dakota, it has been estimated thatsediment will completely fill the reservoirs within less than fortyyears. The costs to the Corps of Engineers for dredging are enormous.With the system described, it would be much less expensive for the Corpsof Engineers to purchase sediment reduction eco-tags.

Alternatively, the eco-tags can be normalized through the application ofappropriate economic models and converted into general eco-tags. Sincethe environmental benefit is not embodied in the actual commodity, itcan be disaggregated from the crop commodity, bundled with other suchpremium attributes and offered for sale to private and publicstakeholders. The eco-tag can then be sold through mitigation bankingbrokers, or re-bundled with a retail product to produce, for example“green tag bread.”

Example D

Non-point releases of nutrients into watersheds are transported intoreservoirs where flow rates slow, mixing decreases, and stimulatedbiological activity rapidly depletes dissolved oxygen. For example,organic contaminants from urban areas, organic contaminants fromfeedlots, and multiple non-point sources accumulate in the dam and causeeutrophication, lowering dissolved oxygen and sometimes causing fishkills. Remediation usually is the responsibility of the power-companythat operates the dam. Often in order to improve water quality andprevent disasters such as fish die-offs, the company must spend millionsof dollars to pump water from the depths of the reservoir in order toincrease oxygen content to minimum acceptable levels. Using anembodiment of this invention, such as one of the systems described abovewith respect to CERCs, upstream polluters can prevent nutrients fromentering the river through such measures as the placement of fences tokeep cattle out of riparian zones, through the isolation of manure andnutrient run-off and other such measures. These mitigation efforts wouldbe quantified through responses to questionnaires and other data inputto a CERC System, an underlying GIS and appropriate numerical models toproduce eco-tags that would be purchased by the power company.

Example E

In another embodiment of the present invention, practices directed atsupporting EBCs relating to nitrous oxide emissions are contemplated.The related methods of the present invention are adapted to moreaccurately calculate baseline determinations of nitrous oxide emissions,predict nitrous oxide emission hotspots, conduct meaningful riskassessment analysis in support of EBCs based upon nitrous oxideemissions or reductions, develop better land management practices todecrease undesired nitrous oxide emissions, assess costs and benefitsassociated with such changes in practice, and verify results of suchchanges in practices.

As an initial matter, to identify and/or predict nitrous oxide emissionhotspots, image analysis is performed on a particular property, portionof a property or portion of a region, a region or regions, to identify,for example, regions of rocks, regions of vegetation and areas ofreflectivity indicative of bodies of water. It is contemplated that suchimage analysis will use texture recognition, pattern recognition orother analyses to differentiate between rocky or arid soil whereundesired denitrification and related nitrous oxide leakage is lesslikely to occur, heavily overgrown areas adjacent a marshy area, lake orstream which is a permanent, year round ecosystem, and a temporarily wetarea, such as drainage bottom or seepage areas, which are potentialnitrous oxide hotspots. The image analysis is preferably performed onsatellite imagery obtained on a periodic basis, to identify seasonal orother changes in textural patterns indicative of changes in vegetativegrowth, water content in soil, marsh formation, and other geographicchanges. Such analysis may use available indices, such as the NormalizedDifference Vegetation Index (NDVI), for example. NDVI is a simplenumerical indicator that can be used to analyze remote sensingmeasurements and assess whether the target from which the measurementsare taken contains live green vegetation and the condition of thevegetation.

However, NDVI calculations are sensitive to atmospheric effects and soilmoisture effects. For these and other reasons, image analysis resultsare most preferably combined with topographic analysis using digitalelevation mapping, to derive, for example, drainage patterns, identifyareas of potential pooling, identify portions of seeded crop lands wherecrop growth is minimal and application of nitrogen-based fertilizer ispoorly used and/or likely to lead to nitrous oxide leakage.

In addition to image and topographic analysis, other data layers arealso analyzed, and assigned a scaled value of indicative of likelihoodof undesired nitrous oxide leakage. One or more of such data layers maycomprise hydrological data, which may include historical precipitationdata, current weather predictive reports, geologic data relating towater tables, groundwater flow patterns and the like. Other generic landuse data, cultural land use practices, and numerical models to predictcarbon and nitrogen cycling in ecosystems as well as numerical processmodels for nutrient cycling in soils, may also be relevant and used asappropriate. Other data layers preferably include soil data, which mayinclude mineral analyses for a property or region. Soil data may alsoinclude other characterizations about soil, such as friability or claycharacteristics, each of which could contribute to the soils tendency tobe leached, to form anaerobic micro-environments, or to pool water, forexample. Other data layers might include plant science information. Eachlayer, including the hydrological data layer(s), image analysislayer(s), topographic layer(s) and other layers are then analyzed forrelevant indicators of nitrous oxide emissions and portions of eachlayer are designed a value, for example, a value of 0-10, with 10indicative of a risk factor having a high probability of nitrous oxideleakage, for a part of a property or region of interest. The part may bea whole contiguous field, a single acre, a large fraction of an acresuch as ¼ of an acre, a smaller portion of a piece of land such as a 3ft.×3 ft. square, a 1 ft.×1 ft. square, or even smaller, or even on apixel or point level, so that a matrix of pixels or points representingthe larger property or region is analyzed. By combining the valuesdesignated for each data layer, for example, the values resulting fromimage analysis, topographic analysis and historical rainfall data,values predictive of nitrous oxide hotspots may be obtained.

Once potential nitrous oxide hotspots are identified, the predictivedata may be used, for example, to develop land management techniques tominimize nitrous oxide leakage, and thereby decrease risks associatedwith trading of EBCs relating to nitrous oxide emissions. One such landmanagement technique involves the precision application of a nitrogenstabilizer conventionally used to delay nitrification of ammoniacal andurea nitrogen fertilizer compositions in the soil of whole fields bycontrolling the nitrification process. One such commercially availableproduct is N-Serve® 24 a product of Dow AgroServices LLC ofIndianapolis, Ind. The active ingredient in N-Serve® 24 is commonlyknown as nitrapyrin (2-chloro-6-(trichloromethyl) pyridine) and isconventionally applied with anhydrous ammonia, dry ammonium and ureafertilizers. N-Serve® 24 may conventionally be mixed with a liquidanimal manure or impregnated on dry ammoniacal fertilizers. Thefertilizer/N-Serve® 24 combination is then applied together usingconventional broadcast techniques to the whole agricultural acreage.

However, for use in the present invention, a nitrogen stabilizer such asN-Serve® 24 is preferably applied without any such fertilizer, andinstead is applied only for the purpose of controlling undesired nitrousoxide emissions. Preferably, the nitrogen stabilizer is appliedprecisely to those portions of land which are predicted to constitutenitrous oxide hotspots, and is not applied broadly across all of aparticular field, property or region. Most preferably, a data analysislike that described above to identify nitrous oxide hotspots, is used toidentify on a point by point basis, spots where nitrous oxide hotspotsare likely to be centered. The data is then interpolated to predictvalues between the various points, so that a matrix developed wherebyapplication amounts of a nitrogen stabilizer are defined for all areasof a property of interest. Thereafter, as the agricultural equipmentapplying the nitrogen stabilizer is driven across the property ofinterest, utilizing GPS (global positioning satellite) technology, thenitrogen stabilizer is applied in varying but precise amounts only tothose portions of the property where control of nitrous oxide leakage isdesired.

Use of other nitrogen stabilizers (also known as nitrificationinhibitors) is also contemplated. For example, dicyandiamide, ETT(5-ethyoxy-3-trichloromethyl-1,2,4-thiadiazole) and DMPP (3,4,dimethylpyrazole-phosphate) are other known compounds used to stabilizefertilizers.

After application of a nitrogen stabilizer, such as late in the fallwhen plant growth may be minimal but snow has not blanketed the ground,further assessments based on, for example, updated data from satelliteimagery, and hydrology reports, may be used to perform validationassessments. The results of such validity studies would be taken intoaccount in risk and other assessments used to support the tradability ofEBCs relating to nitrous oxide emissions, thereby decreasing uncertaintyassociated with such EBCs/environmental attributes and decreasing theproportion of reserve EBCs/reserve standardized environmentalattributes, associated with a particular property.

In sum, the present example involves identifying areas and time periodshaving a high likelihood of nitrous oxide emissions. For each areaidentified, topographic information, most preferably digital elevationdata is collected. The identified area is then divided into grids,preferably 1 meter grids. The grid elements likely to accumulatemoisture are then identified. For example, the digital elevation datamay suggest collection points such as drainages, naturally dammedgeography, pockets and the like likely to result in temporary pond,marsh or wetland. Digital elevation data is preferably incorporated withsoil type information, field boundaries, crop histories, hydrologicaldata and whether information, both historical and predictive. Satelliteremote sensing data, both current and historical, is then utilized toidentify grid elements remaining green the longest. Risk factors arethen assigned based upon sustained greenness, it being understood thatareas that stay green the longest are likely to be the same areas thatretain soil moisture the longest and also have higher soil nitrogenavailability. Land management data is also assessed. Preferably, datafrom precision agriculture sensors (e.g., fertilizer application data,yield data and irrigation data) is used if available. A numerical riskfactor is assigned for each data element. Based on this information, theidentification of specific areas and time periods that are at thehighest risk for emission of nitrous oxide can be made. Such areas maybe identified as nitrous oxide hotspots.

Most preferably, application of N-Serve® or similar nitrogen stabilizerproduct is applied to stop denitrification processes in soil isundertaken to stop nitrous oxide emissions that occur as a consequenceof denitrification. A nitrogen-cycling model to quantify the decrease inlikely nitrous oxide emissions as a result of remediation activities isrecommended. An uncertainty analysis is performed on the local area dataand general data from the region, to estimate the range of uncertaintyfor the nitrous oxide reduction credits, normalize and standardize thesecredits in the same way as carbon credits are normalized andstandardized. A report can then be generated which summarized nitrousoxide emissions avoided using the above analysis, for independentthird-party verification.

In this way, a geographic information system that stores criticalvariables that affect the likelihood of carbon sequestration and nitrousoxide emissions is created. The system utilizes several dimensions ofdata including general GIS data, field-specific management data,remotely-sensed data from aerial photographs and satellite imagery aswell as process-based numerical models to specifically identify areas athigh risk of nitrous oxide emissions. Recommendations land managementpractices generally and particular treatment plans to reduce oreliminate nitrous oxide emissions are developed thereby. Mostpreferably, the resulting plans take into account, where applicable,application of chemical amendments and provide implementation ofspecific spot-tillage practices that will reduce the occurrence ofanaerobic conditions, recommendations for improved drainage, andrecommendations to limit fertilizer application in identified emissionhotspots.

The invention will assist the development of new producer revenuesources, improved land stewardship, the creation of a powerful,nationally-competitive interdisciplinary science consortium, and thegeneration of revenue to help sustain research and education in appliedbiogeochemistry.

A number of variations and modifications of the invention can be used.It would be possible to provide for some features of the inventionwithout providing others.

In addition to generating standardized EBCs, the methods and apparatusdescribed herein can be utilized by entities such as nations to performGHG accounting for the natural resources sector as may be required byprotocols or treaties, such as Kyoto. Also, the invention can be used bythose using other methods, such as project based, management-basedapproaches, to provide independent third party performance monitoringand verification. Additionally, modules can be developed that aredirected and applicable to a variety of environmental problems andindustries. For example, the use of generalized historical data and morespecific performance data, analyzed with the aid of biogeochemical andeconomic or other models, and submitted to an analysis to quantity thelevel of certainty, could be applied to any problem where EBC and/or GHGaccounting is required. The uncertainty analysis can be expanded toinclude estimates of default rates for a specific management practice,for the costs of future monitoring and verification, as well as forbiogeochemical model variables so that the final EBC is normalized withrespect to its final value to potential purchasers.

The foregoing discussion of the invention has been presented forpurposes of illustration and description. The foregoing is not intendedto limit the invention to the form or forms disclosed herein. In theforegoing description for example, various features of the invention aregrouped together in one or more embodiments for the purpose ofstreamlining the disclosure. This method of disclosure is not to beinterpreted as reflecting an intention that the claimed inventionrequires more features than are expressly recited in each claim. Rather,inventive aspects lie in less than all features of a single foregoingdisclosed embodiment.

Moreover and although the description of the invention has includeddescription of one or more embodiments and certain variations andmodifications, other variations and modifications are within the scopeof the invention, e.g. as may be within the skill and knowledge of thosein the art, after understanding the present disclosure. It is intendedto obtain rights which include alternative embodiments to the extentpermitted, including alternate, interchangeable and/or equivalentstructures, functions, ranges or steps to those claimed, whether or notsuch alternate, interchangeable and/or equivalent structures, functions,ranges or steps are disclosed herein, and without intending to publiclydedicate any patentable subject matter.

1. A computer-based method for generating standardized emissionreduction credits, comprising: receiving site-specific data with respectto a geographic location, regarding at least one variable impactingreduction of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere, wherein the at least onevariable comprises site-specific land use practices; retrieving data,general to a geographic region encompassing the location, regarding atleast one variable impacting said nitrous oxide, wherein the at leastone variable comprises regional historical land use practices and theregional historical land use practice data is used to supplement orsubstitute for site-specific land use practice data that is unavailable;processing the site-specific data regarding the location and the datageneral to the geographic region encompassing the location, through amodel running on a computer, to determine a change in impact on saidnitrous oxide at the location over a specified time period; conductingan uncertainty analysis on the change at the location over the specifiedtime period, by the computer, to quantify a relative level ofuncertainty of the change at the location over the specified timeperiod, wherein the uncertainty analysis includes evaluatingacceptability of the received site-specific land use practice data byutilizing the general regional historical land use practice data; fromthe uncertainty analysis conducted by the computer, identifying, usingthe quantified relative level of uncertainty to identify a quantity ofemission reduction credits that do not qualify as standardized emissionreduction credits and cannot be traded as such, a quantity of emissionreduction credits that qualify as the standardized emission reductioncredits for trading; and reporting from the computer the identifiedquantity of the standardized emission reduction credits.
 2. The methodof claim 1 further comprising: identifying an area in the geographiclocation which, based on the site-specific data and data general to thegeographic region, is predicted to emit nitrous oxide over the specifiedperiod of time; applying a nitrogen stabilizer to the area to delaynitrification of soil in the area and/or delay nitrous oxide leakagefrom the soil in the area; retrieving additional site-specific dataafter application of the nitrogen stablilizer; performing validationassessments with the computer, utilizing the additional site-specificdata; and reporting from the computer any change in the identifiedquantity of the standardized emission reduction credits.
 3. A system forgenerating standardized emission reduction credits, comprising: acomputer; at least one database accessible by the computer, the at leastone database containing: site-specific data with respect to a geographiclocation, regarding at least one variable impacting reduction of nitrousoxide in the atmosphere, wherein the at least one variable comprisessite-specific land use practices; and data, general to a geographicregion encompassing the location, regarding at least one variableimpacting the nitrous oxide, wherein the at least one variable comprisesregional historical land use practices and the regional historical landuse practice data is used to supplement or substitute for site-specificland use practice data that is unavailable; wherein the computer isconfigured to run: a modeling program to process the site-specific dataand the data general to the geographic region encompassing the locationthrough a model, to determine a change in impact on the nitrous oxide atthe location over a specified time period; and an uncertainty analysisprogram to process the change at the location over the specified timeperiod, to identify a quantity of emission reduction credits using aquantified level of uncertainty in the determined change in impact,including evaluating acceptability of the site-specific land usepractice data by utilizing the general regional historical land usepractice data, to identify a quantity of the emission reduction creditsthat do not qualify as standardized emission reduction credits, andcannot be traded as such, to identify those that qualify as thestandardized carbon emission reduction credits for trading; and at leastone interface to the computer, for outputting a report of the identifiedquantity of the standardized emission reduction credits.